The  Royal  Authority 


AND  THE 


Early  English  Universities 


A  Thesis  presented  to  the  Faculty  of  Philosophy  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania 


BY 


JAMES  F.  WILLARD 


In  Partial  Fulfillment  of  the  Requirements  for  the 
Degree  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


PHILADELPHIA 

1QOZ. 


The  Royal  Authority 


AND  THE 


Eariy  English  Universities 


A  Thesis  presented  to  the  Faculty  of  Philosophy  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania 


BY 


JAMES  F.  WILLARD 


In  Partial  Fulfillment  of  the  Requirements  for  the 
Degree  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


PHILADELPHIA 
190*. 


u 


UNIVERSITY  OF 

SANTA  BAllifAKA 


CONTENTS. 


Introduction,  5 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Judicial  Powers  of  the  Chancellor, 14 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Universities  and  the  Boroughs, 38 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Universities  and  the  Central  Government,  ....  68 

Appendices,    81,  82 

Bibliography,    86 


INTRODUCTION. 


When  the  thirteenth  century  opened  there  were  in 
Oxford  a  number  of  masters  and  scholars  who  had  as- 
sembled in  that  place  for  the  purpose  of  study.  Cam- 
bridge soon  after  also  showed  signs  of  becoming  a  seat 
of  learning.  The  organization  of  these  bodies  was  very 
primitive,  they  had  few  customs  to  bind  them  together 
and  no  statutes  of  their  own  making,  for  no  body  ex- 
isted as  yet  which  could  make  statutes.  The  bishop's 
representative,  the  chancellor,  however,  served,  even  at 
this  early  date,  to  give  some  unity  to  these  gatherings. 
Before,  therefore,  they  could  attract  the  attention  of 
the  king  they  would  have  to  attain  a  larger  size  and 
more  importance.  During  the  early  part  of  the  thir- 
teenth century,  then,  the  universities  may  be  regarded 
as  a  body  of  students  "held  together  rather  by  a  loose 
code  of  professional  customs  or  etiquette  than  by  any 
formal  body  of  written  laws."1 

Out  of  these  slightly  coherent  bodies  of  scholars 
grew,  during  the  middle  ages,  the  mighty  corporations 
of  later  times.  During  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth 
centuries  the  universities  gain  royal,  papal  and  episco- 
pal recognition.  They  gain  rights  not  enjoyed  by  the 
members  of  the  ecclesiastical  organization  in  general. 
They  put  on  a  corporate  existence,  making  statutes 
binding  upon  their  own  members,  receiving  grants  of 
privileges  and  of  land  in  their  own  name,  and  in  the 
world  gaining  recognition  as  powers  to  be  cultivated 
and  encouraged.  Within  their  respective  towns  they 
become  the  dominant  authorities,  gathering  to  them- 
selves many  of  the  former  borough  rights  and  privileges 
and  gradually  taking  the  place  of  the  government  of 
these  boroughs  in  some  of  their  most  important  activi- 

1  O.  H.  S.  Collectanea,  II.,  Rashdall,  195. 


ties.  Both  the  towns  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  found 
themselves  hemmed  in  on  all  sides  by  the  universities; 
their  petitions  for  redress  were  often  disregarded,  their 
struggles  for  redress  generally  brought  only  a  worse 
fate  upon  them. 

The  end  of  the  fourteenth  century  witnessed  a  vast 
change  in  the  relative  position  of  the  opposing  corpora- 
tions. At  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century  the 
universities  had  been  weak,  unorganized  and  unprivi- 
leged; at  he  end  of  the  fourteenth  century  they  had 
numerous  students,  a  strong  organization  and  many 
rights.  They  now  controlled  the  city  markets  of  their 
towns,  the  care  of  the  streets  and  pavements  was  in. 
their  charge,  they  had  gained  some  police  functions, 
the  town  gaols  were  open  for  their  use,  and  the  townsmen 
might  not  even  rate  their  houses  for  the  students  to  suit 
themselves.  Oxford  had  gained  a  complete  immunity 
from  the  power  of  the  bishop  and  Cambridge  was  soon  to 
do  likewise.  Both  had  gained  an  exemption  from  the 
royal  and  ecclesiastical  judges  in  all  but  a  few  well 
marked  cases,  so  that  their  authority  over  their  own 
members  was  in  many  respects  absolute.  On  the  material 
side  also  they  had  grown.  Large  amounts  of  money 
and  much  land  had  been  given  them  by  pious  persons, 
libraries  were  started,  schools  endowed  and  halls  built 
during  this  formative  period  of  the  universities. 

This  growth,  in  its  main  outlines,  with  special  refer- 
ence to  the  royal  administration,  is  to  be  the  subject  of 
this  study.  While  many  powers  came  from  the  grants 
of  the  pope  or  bishop,  the  almost  constant  and  unwaver- 
ing attitude  of  favor  on  the  part  of  the  crown  toward 
the  students  is  the  great  cause  of  this  development. 
Without  the  royal  interference  the  universities  could 
not  have  attained  the  great  importance  that  they  finally 
did  attain,  for  it  was  not  within  the  power  of  either  the 
popes  or  bishops  to  give  to  them  the  privileges  they 
obtained  through  the  good  will  of  the  several  kings  of 
England. 


Before  proceeding  to  the  organization  and  privileges 
of  these  universities  it  will  be  necessary,  first  of  all,  to 
consider  the  composition  of  these  bodies,  deciding,  in 
so  far  as  it  is  possible,  what  persons  or  classes  of  per- 
sons came  within  this  organization  and  enjoyed  these 
privileges  and  also  deciding  within  what  limits  these 
privileges  were  exercised.  The  process  of  definition  of 
the  terms  scholar,  scholar's  servant  and  the  like,  was 
gradual,  increasing  in  accuracy  and  clearness  as  the 
universities  became  more  independent  of  outside  con- 
trol. 

The  most  natural  question  and  the  first  to  be  an- 
swered was  that  of  the  content  of  the  term  scholar. 
Were  all  the  clergy  who  dwelt  within  the  town  to  enjoy 
the  privileges  of  the  university  whether  the  came  there 
to  study  or  for  other  reasons?  It  must  be  understood 
that  the  teaching  body,  the  masters,  always  enjoyed  all 
the  privileges  of  the  university.  The  first  definition  of 
a  scholar  is  contained  in  the  royal  writs  of  the  year  1231, 
sent  to  both  universities.  In  the  case  of  Oxford  the 
motive  of  the  action  was  the  disturbance  caused  by  cer- 
tain men  who  pretended  to  be  scholars,  and  as  the  Cam- 
bridge writ  is  dated  at  Oxford,  it  is  the  direct  result  of 
the  troubles  in  that  place.  The  sheriff  was  commanded 
by  the  king  to  proclaim  in  his  name  that  no  clerk 
should  remain  in  the  universities  who  was  not  under  the 
tuition  of  some  master  and  any  such  found  within  the 
town  after  a  period  of  fifteen  days  was  to  be  arrested 
and  imprisoned  by  the  sheriff.2  In  these  orders  Henry 
III  may  have  been  only  following  a  university  cus- 
tom, for  later  we  find  the  same  general  principle  em- 
bodied in  the  statutes.  About  I25O,3  or  later,  the 
university  of  Oxford  passed  a  statute  to  the  effect  that 
every  scholar  should  have  his  own  master  upon  whose 
roll  his  name  must  be  entered  and  under  whom  he 

*  Wood,  Annals,  ed.  Gutch,  I.,  206;   Cooper,  Annals,  I.,  41. 

3Munimenta  academica,  I.,  17.  Anstey  ascribes  them  to  this 
date.  Rashdall,  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  II.,  195,  thinks  them  of  a  later 
date;  cf.  Mun.  acad.,  II.,  444. 


8 

should  hear  at  least  one  lecture  daily.  A  similar  rule 
was  also  in  force  in  Cambridge.  In  the  settlement  of  a 
dispute  between  the  university  and  the  archdeacon  of 
Ely,  of  the  year  1276,  it  is  stated  that  the  university  had 
made  a  statute  commanding  that  no  one  should  receive 
a  scholar  who  had  not  a  fixed  master  within  fifteen  days 
after  his  entrance  into  the  university  and  whose  name 
was  not  upon  the  master's  matriculation  roll.4  In  the 
Cambridge  regulation  express  mention  was  made  of  the 
royal  command  before  noticed.  Both  universities  pro- 
vided that  all  infringements  of  these  rules  would  sub- 
ject the  offender  to  imprisonment  or  expulsion. 

The  name  m'ost  frequently  coupled  with  that  of 
scholar  is  scholar's  servant.  That  these  early  enjoyed 
the  privileges  of  the  university  cannot  be  doubted,  yet 
it  is  impossible  to  assign  an  exact  date  upon  which  they 
were  given  the  right  to  enjoy  such  rights  for  the  first 
time.  It  is  very  probable  that  custom  here,  as  else- 
where, antedated  by  many  years  the  exact  definitions 
which  have  come  down  to  us.  During  the  latter  part  of 
the  thirteenth  century,  however,  their  right  to  partici- 
pate in  the  privileges  of  the  scholars  is  recognized  in 
both  universities.  The  earliest  extant  definition  is  that 
of  the  university  of  Cambridge.  The  decree  of  the 
bishop  of  Ely,  dated  1276,  states  that  there  is  in  force 
a  university  statute  providing  "that  the  household  serv- 
ants of  the  scholars,  the  writers  and  others,  who  exer- 
cise offices  that  are 'peculiarly  assigned  to  the  use  of  the 
scholars  shall  enjoy  the  same  exemptions  and  liberties  as 
the  scholars,  so  as  not  to  answer  before  the  archdeacon, 
as  neither  do  the  scholars  who  are  their  masters."5  The 
bishop  further  defines  scholars'  servants  to  mean  those 
residing  in  the  houses  with  them,  while  serving  them 
in  person  and  also  defines  "writers  and  others"  as 
"writers,  illuminators,  and  stationers,  who  serve  the 

4  Cooper,  I.,  57. 

"Ibid.,  I.,  56-57;   see  also  Ibid.,  I.,  141  ( 1393-94)- 


scholars  only."6  Almost  identically  the  same  classes  of 
.  men  are  privileged  along  with  the  scholars  in  Oxford. 
In  1290  the  list  of  those  enjoying  the  rights  of  the  schol- 
ars is  stated  by  the  king  to  include  parchment  makers, 
illuminators,  writers,  barbers,  and  other  men  who  wear 
the  same  habit  as  the  scholars.7  The  definition  is  made 
still  clearer  in  1345,  when  it  is  laid  down  that  the  serv- 
ants proper  must  dwell  within  the  houses  of  the  mas- 
ters and  scholars.  At  the  same  time  the  list  of  other 
privileged  persons  is  increased  by  the  addition  of  the 
six  bedels  and  the  four  sworn  stationers  of  the  univer- 
sity.8 

In  both  universities,  therefore,  the  servants  of  the 
scholars  who  lived  with  them  or  those  artisans  whose 
trades  had  particularly  to  do  with  the  scholars,  enjoyed 
their  privileges  and  this  continues  to  be  the  practice.  K 
There  are  often  two  uses  of  the  term  scholar's  servant, 
one  general,  including  all  those  who  enjoy  the  privileges 
of  the  university  while  not  students;  the  other  special, 
including  only  those  who  are,  strictly  speaking,  servants. 
The  lists  vary  but  little  in  later  times.  That  of  Oxford 
in  I3569  is  the  same  as  the  earlier  ones  and  though  in 
I45410  and  1524"  there  are  some  new  trades  mentioned, 
these  are  due  rather  to  an  extension  of  the  above  defini- 
tion than  to  any  new  principle.  In  Cambridge  also  the 
earlier  definitions  are  preserved  in  later  times.12 

The  geographical  limits  within  which  the  universities 
exercised  their  authority  over  such  persons  were  at 
first  indefinite.  During  the  thirteenth  century  the 
phrase,  town  and  suburbs,  seems  to  cover  in  a  general 
way  these  limits  for  Oxford.13  The  word  town  is  fairly 

6  Cooper,  I.,  57. 

7  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  52;    cf.  Lyte,  History  of  Oxford,  171. 

8  Ibid.,  I.,  148. 
•Ibid.,  I.,  175. 

10  Rashdall,  Hist,  universities,  II.,  II.,  409,  note  4. 
"  Rogers,  Oxford  city  documents,  53  sq. 

12  Cooper,  I.,  104  (1354);    Ibid.,  I.,  127,  141;    Rot.  part.,  III., 
325  b. 

13  Wood,  I.,  234. 


10 

definite,  especially  when  the  walls  enclosed  it  as  was 
the  case  in  Oxford,  but  suburbs  was  likely  to  be  very 
vague.  Contests  arose  in  Oxford  over  the  extent  of 
the  latter  term,  the  most  noted  being  that  between  the 
university  and  Richard  d'Amory,  who  disputed  the 
claim  of  the  chancellor  to  jurisdiction  within  the  hun- 
dred without  the  north  gate  of  Oxford.  In  the  settle- 
ment of  the  matter,  the  hundred  was  defined  to  be  with- 
in the  suburbs  and  thus  the  chancellor  could  exercise 
his  powers  throughout  its  territory.14  An  accurate  de- 
lineation of  the  boundaries  within  which  the  university 
could  exercise  its  chartered  rights  was  given  in  1401. 15 
These  were  St.  Bartholomew's  Hospital,  on  the  east, 
to  Botley,  on  the  west,  Godstow  bridge,  on  the  north, 
Q/  and  Barley  Wood,  on  the  south,  a  much  larger  area 
being  included  than  the  former  suburbs  about  the  town. 
Cambridge  does  not  seem  to  have  gained  any  fuller  defi- 
nition of  its  jurisdictional  limits  during  the  period  under 
discussion  than  that  of  the  town  and  suburbs. 

The  actual  management  of  the  affairs  of  the  univer- 
sity was  entrusted  to  the  teaching  body,  the  masters 
or  regents.  Those  who  had  taken  the  master's  degree 
but  who  were  not  actively  engaged  in  teaching,  the  non- 
regents,  were  a  reserve  body  whose  consent  was  neces- 
sary to  certain  of  the  more  important  actions  of  the 
universities.16  In  Oxford  there  were  three  bodies  which 
took  part  in  the  public  business:17  the  black  congrega- 
tion, composed  of  the  regents  in  arts,  which  elected  the 
proctors,  and  as  the  previous  congregation  prepared 
the  statutes  which  were  later  to  be  acted  upon  by  the 
other  bodies ;  the  congregation  of  regents  or  lesser 
congregation,  composed  of  the  regent  masters  of  all 
the  faculties,  which  elected  the  chancellor,  transacted 
the  ordinary  business  of  the  university,  financial  or  re- 

uMun.  acad.,  I.,  173-180  (1356)  ;  cf.  Ibid.,  L,  43-45,  for  an  ear- 
lier case. 

15  Wood,  I.,  538;   Rashdall,  op.  cit,  II.,  II.,  4"- 
18  M.u\linger,University  of  Cambridge,  I.,  140,  n.  2. 
17  Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  373  sq. ;   Lyte,  Hist.  Ox.,  233-234. 


11 

lating  to  the  teaching  methods,  and  which  also  acted 
as  a  court  of  appeal  from'  the  chancellor's  court  in  cer- 
tain cases ;  and  finally  the  congregation  of  regents  and 
non-regents  or  the  great  congregation,  which  was  the 
statute  making  body,  the  final  court  of  appeal  within 
the  university  and  the  organization  which  had  final  con- 
trol over  all  matters  relating  to  the  activities  of  the  uni- 
versity. In  Cambridge  there  were  but  two  congrega- 
tions, that  of  the  regents  and  that  of  the  regents  and 
non-regents.18  There  was  no  previous  congregation  to 
prepare  legislation.19  In  Cambridge,  as  in  Oxford,  the 
congregation  of  regents  was  the  active  administrative 
and  governing  body  of  the  university,  but  the  non-re- 
gents had  a  greater  share  in  this  business  than  in  Ox- 
ford and  even  claimed  a  certain  part  in  the  election  of 
the  chancellor. 

The  earliest  grants  made  in  the  universities  contain 
the  name  of  an  official  at  their  head,  the  chancellor. 
Originally  appointed  by  the  bishop  to  watch  over  the 
clergy  assembled  in  Oxford  or  Cambridge  for  the  pur- 
pose of  study,  during  the  thirteenth  century  he  became 
the  real  head  of  these  bodies,  the  president  of  their 
greater  congregations  and  the  official  recipient  of  many 
of  their  privileges.  His  election  gradually  passed  from  ]  i 
the  hands  of  the  bishop  into  those  of  the  congregation  C  /*- 
of  regents,  although  his  election  had  to  be  confirmed 
by  the  bishop  before  he  might  assume  the  duties  of  his  r*^ 
office.  This  last  hold  of  the  bishop  over  the  chancellor's 
election  was  taken  away  from  the  bishop  of  Lincoln  in 
I368,20  and  from  the  bishop  of  Ely  in  1401. 21  He  was  in 
both  cases,  elected  for  two  years  from  among  the  re- 
gents of  the  university,  the  usual  practice  in  Oxford 
being  to  select  a  doctor  of  theology  or  of  canon  law 
to  fill  the  place.22  Though  the  chancellor  became  in  the 

18  Mullinger,   op.   cit,   I.,   142-143. 

19  Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  554. 

20  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  228-230. 

21  Cooper,  I.,  146. 
"Lyte,  op.  cit.,  231. 


12 

fullest  sense  the  head  of  the  university,  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  the  origin  of  his  power  was  episcopal 
and  also  that  he  never  seems  entirely  to  amalgamate 
with  the  university  teaching  body.  He  always  appears 
to  be  a  power  outside  of  it,  giving  his  sanction  to  its 
statutes  and  punishing  its  members  through  his  own 
special  and  peculiar  privileges.  In  both  bodies  the 
chancellor  is  nevertheless  the  chief  administrative  official. 

Next  in  importance  to  the  chancellor  were  the  proctors. 
In  each  university  these  were  two  in  number,  elected 
annually,  in  Oxford  by  the  regents  in  arts,23  and  in 
Cambridge  by  the  congregation  of  regents.24  They  were 
the  real  representatives  of  the  universities,  owing  their 
existence  to  those  bodies  alone.  Their  duty  it  was  to 
watch  over  the  obedience  to  the  statutes ;  they  summon- 
ed the  Black  Congregation  in  Oxford,  they  had  general 
charge  of  the  administration  of  the  finances  of  the  uni- 
versities, they  exacted  the  fines  incurred  under  the  stat- 
ues and  attended  to  other  matters  of  a  like  administrative 
character.25  When  the  chancellor  received  administra- 
tive powers  from  the  king  they  are  generally  associated 
with  him  and  in  some  cases,  as  in  the  case  of  the  market 
irr  Oxford,  they  gradually  superseded  him. 

The  subordinate  officials  are  not  of  much  importance 
with  respect  to  this  study.  The  bedels  were  the  most 
prominent  among  these  minor  officers.  In  Oxford  they 
"served  writs  and  citations  and  conducted  offenders  to 
prison,  beside  watching  to  see  that  the  proper  cere- 
monies were  observed  upon  all  public  occasions.26  They 
had  similar  functions  in  Cambridge,  and  attended  the 
chancellor  and  proctors  wherever  these  might  go.*T 
They  were  generally  attached  to  some  faculty  of  the  uni- 
versity. The  taxors,  four  in  number  in  Oxford,  two  in 

23  Lyte,  op.  cit,  231. 

24  Mullinger,  op.  cit.,  I.,  144. 

25  Mullinger,  op.  cit,  I.,  144;    Lyte,  op.  cit,  231;    Rashdall,  op. 
cit.,  II.,  II.,  372-373;   Mun.  acad.,  II.,  486;   and  Ibid.,  I.,  no. 

28  Lyte,  op.  cit.,  230. 

27  Mullinger,  op.  cit,  I.,  144-145. 


13 

Cambridge,  were  regents  of  the  university  elected  for 
the  purpose  of  seeing  to  the  fixing  of  the  rent  of  the 
inns  and  halls  inhabited  by  the  scholars.  Their  associa- 
tion with  the  Cambridge  proctors  for  the  regulation  of 
some  matters  connected  with  the  market  is  apart  from 
their  original  position.28  The  Oxford  judicial  system 
gave  rise  to  certain  minor  judicial  officials,  the  judges 
who  tried  civil  suits  known  as  the  hebdomadarii. 
These  judges,  one  sitting  each  week,  were  doctors  in 
civil  and  canon  law ;  later,  however,  certain  bachelors  in 
those  faculties  were  admitted  to  the  office. 29The  right 
of  direct  appeal  from  their  judgments  to  the  chancellor 
was  always  recognized.  Cambridge  allowed  its  masters 
to  try  certain  minor  cases  in  which  scholars  were  the 
defendants,  except  when  the  latter  renounced  this  juris- 
diction.30 

28  Mullinger,  op.  cit.,  I.,  145. 

29  Lyte,  op.  cit.,  232-233 ;   Man.  acad.,  I.,  69. 

30  Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  554;   Docs,  relating  to  the  univ.  and 
colleges  of  Camb.,  I.,  328. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  JUDICIAL  POWERS  OF  THE  CHANCELLOR. 

The  most  prominent  increase  of  university  powers 
under  the  fostering  care  of  the  central  government  was 
that  of  the  judicial  privileges  of  the  chancellor.  With- 
out the  royal  grants  the  chancellor  could  not  have  gain- 
ed his  wide  authority  over  cases  which  ordinarily  be- 
longed to  the  royal  or  local  justices ;  without  the  aid  of 
the  king  he  could  not  have  effectively  enforced  his  judg- 
ments ;  and  without  his  timely  interference  even  the 
chancellor's  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  might  have  been 
greatly  circumscribed  and  retarded  in  its  development. 
Only,  indeed,  from  the  central  authority  of  the  king- 
dom could  this  aid  come,  for  the  local  officials  were 
jealous  and  very  often  had  good  reason  for  feeling  ag- 
grieved and  revengeful.  If  the  latter  could  have  had 
their  way  in  this  matter  the  universities  would  have  re- 
mained mere  unorganized  gatherings  of  students  with- 
out coercive  powers  over  even  their  own  members. 
That  the  universities  did  increase  in  importance  and 
strength,  generally  at  the  expense  of  some  local  author- 
ity, is  due  for  the  most  part  to  the  action  of  the  succes- 
sive English  kings  living  during  the  thirteenth  and  four- 
teenth centuries,  who,  widely  divergent  in  character  as 
they  may  be,  had  at  least  this  one  point  in  common, 
they  all  favored  these  two  great  institutions  of  learning. 

In  its  origin  the  judicial  power  of  the  chancellor  was 
ecclesiastical.  /He  was  an  episcopal  official  placed  over 
a  body  of  clerics  to  regulate  their  conduct  as  the  bishop's 
representative.  When  this  body  grew  to  be  an  organ- 
ized university  his  position  changed  and  he  was  now  the 
head  of  the  university  with  increased  judicial  powers 
because  of  this  position.  He  gained  by  this  transforma- 
tion certain  rights  over  the  various  laymen  whose  trades 


15 

connected  them  with  the  university  and  later  by  papal 
grant,  in  Oxford,  he  was  given  jurisdiction  over  the 
various  ecclesiastics  who  would  otherwise  have  been 
exempt  even  from  the  episcopal  courts.1  After  the  uni- 
versities had  attained  a  certain  prominence  the  crown  be- 
gan to  grant  judicial  powers  and  to  these  grants  the 
chancellor  owed  his  position  of  judge  over  cases  other- 
wise belonging  to  the  courts  of  the  royal  justices.  The 
completed  powers  of  the  chancellor  are,  therefore,  three- 
fold in  origin,  ecclesiastical,  university  and  royal,  though 
it  must  not  be  imagined  that  he  ever  made  this  distinc- 
tion clear  in  practice.  The  great  reason  for  the  increase 
of  his  privileges  seems  to  be  the  influence  of  the  royal 
favor.  The  kings  made  large  grants  to  the  universities 
and  these  appear  to  encourage  the  chancellor  to  claim 
exemptions  from  the  episcopal  power  and  to  seek  bulls 
of  confirmation  from  the  pope.  Nothing,  indeed,  suc- 
ceeded like  success  during  the  middle  ages.  Once  given 
rights  the  chancellor  was  led  to  usurp  others,  feeling 
fairly  sure  that  he  would  be  supported  in  his  usurpation. 
And  not  alone  the  kings,  but  the  other  clergy  did  support 
him.  On  account  of  the  importance  of  the  royal  grants 
they  will  be  considered  first,  although  the  chancellor  did 
have  a  certain  delegated  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  before 
the  universities  had  come  under  the  notice  of  the  crown. 
In  order  to  prevent  confusion  the  two  universities  will  be 
considered  separately. 

The  first  royal  grant  of  judicial  powers  to  the  chan- 
cellor of  Oxford  was  that  of  cognizance  of  certain  civil 
cases.  By  his  letters  patent  of  May  10,  I244,2  Henry 
III  conferred  upon  him  the  right  to  try  all  cases  arising 
in  Oxford  or  its  suburbs,  relating  to  controversies  over 
debts,  the  rent  of  houses,  the  price  of  victuals,  horses, 
or  clothes  and  all  other  contracts  of  movables,  to  which 
a  clerk  was  a  party.  It  is  a  matter  of  some  doubt 
whether  this  privilege  referred  to  any  cases  other  than 

1  Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  430. 

"Wood,  I.,  234;    Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  393-394- 


16 

those  to  which  the  scholar  was  the  defendant.3  The 
grant,  because  of  the  actual  jurisdiction  it  gave,  as  well 
as  because  of  its  effect  as  a  precedent,  has  been  called 
the  magna  charta  of  the  university  of  Oxford.4  In  spite 
of  the  long  struggle  of  the  English  clergy  for  the  right 
of  trying  cases  of  contracts  they  never  gained  this  power 
and,  therefore,  in  this  his  first  great  grant,  Henry  made 
a  differentiation  of  the  university  from  the  clergy  of  the 
realm.  And,  indeed,  he  was  the  only  power  able  to  make 
this  change  in  policy.  In  the  year  1260  the  constable 
of  Oxford  raised  the  point  that  the  Jews  did  not  come 
under  this  jurisdiction  of  the  chancellor  since  "they  did 
not  form  a  part  of  the  ordinary  community  of  the  town."5 
A  jury  of  inquisition  being  summoned  upon  the  case, 
it  decided  that  the  chancellor  had  full  cognizance  of  all 
bargains  and  contracts  between  the  scholars  and  the 
Jews,  excepting  those  matters  belonging  to  the  crown 
and  pleas  of  land.  Edward  I,  in  his  writ  of  the  year 
1275,"  gave  to  this  authority  over  civil  cases  the  form 
it  was  to  retain  during  the  remainder  of  our  period,  with 
some  slight  additions  not  affecting  the  principle.  By 
this  grant  the  chancellor  of  Oxford  was  given  the  cog- 
nizance of  all  personal  actions  to  which  either  party  was 
a  scholar,  thus  widening  his  authority  if  the  former 
grant  was  limited  to  cases  where  the  scholars  were  de- 
fendants. From  this  time  forward,  therefore,  the  chan- 
cellor could  summon  the  burgesses  and  other  laymen 
of  the  town  to  answer  in  his  court  for  all  cases  where  a 
student  was  either  plaintiff  or  defendant.  The  finding 
of  the  jury  of  1260  was  also  made  permanent  by  the 
same  king  in  1286  when  he  allowed  the  chancellor  full 
cognizance  of  all  personal  actions  and  contracts  between 

*  Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  398. 

4  Lyte,  op.  cit.,  42. 

"Wood,  I.,  260;  O.  H.  S.  Coll.,  II.,  Neubauer,  The  Jews  in 
Oxford,  285. 

"Ibid.,  I.,  301-302;  Report  deputy  keeper  pub.  records,  44  (1883),. 
207 ;  confirmed  2  Ed.  II.,  I  Ed.  III.,  4  Rich.  II. 


17 

the  scholars  and  the  Jews.7  He  was  given  the  power 
of  imprisoning  and  excommunicating  them  and  of  call- 
ing upon  the  constable  of  the  castle  to  enforce  his  man- 
dates. Although  the  powers  of  the  chancellor,  in  this 
respect,  had  been  extended  to  the  suburbs  of  Oxford, 
the  bailiff  of  the  hundred  without  the  north  gate  disput- 
ed his  rights  within  that  district  in  I288.8  The  king's 
council,  however,  decided  against  this  claim  and  removed 
him  from  his  office.  Having  brought  the  question  of 
the  civil  jurisdiction  down  to  the  year  of  the  great  settle- 
ment, 1290,  we  shall  now  turn  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
chancellor  over  criminal  cases. 

In  cases  involving  crimes  the  authority  of  the  chancel- 
lor was  much  slower  in  attaining  definiteness  than  it 
was  in  civil  cases.  The  first  steps  toward  this  jurisdic- 
tion were  not  in  themselves  grants  of  jurisdictional 
rights.  A  distinction  was  at  first  made  in  favor  of  the 
scholars.  During  the  year  1248  Henry  III  granted  that 
if  an  injury  be  done  to  a  scholar  the  inquisition  thereof 
should  be  made  by  the  neighboring  villages  as  well  as 
by  the  burgesses  of  Oxford.9  This  was  to  prevent  the 
passions  of  the  burgesses  from  having  full  sway.  More- 
over, if  a  scholar  should  be  slain  the  whole  town  should 
be  punished  for  the  deed.  The  distinction  thus  made 
between  scholars  and  laymen  was  later  made  still  clearer, 
not  by  a  royal  charter  or  letters  patent,  but  by  a  custom 
which  afterwards  received  the  higher  sanction.  In  1251 
the  king  released  two  scholars  from  gaol  and  promised 
that  all  scholars  charged  with  light  offenses  should  be 
handed  over  to  the  chancellor,  as  vice-regent  of  the 
bishop  of  Lincoln ;  those  accused  of  more  serious  crimes 
were  to  be  reserved  for  the  bishop  himself.10  During 
the  following  years  more  scholars  were  released  to  the 

TO.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  II.,  Neubauer,  op.  cit.,  286;  Cat.  patent  rolls 
Ed.  I.,  1281-92,  236;  Wood,  I.,  325. 

8  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  43-45 ;    Wood,  I.,  327. 

9  Wood,  I.,  238-239;   Oxford  city  docs.,  Rogers,  212;   confirmed 
Cal,  p.  r.,  Ed.  L,  1281-92,  258. 

10  Ibid.,  I.,  243 ;    Lyte,  op.  cit.,  45. 


18 

chancellor  to  be  tried  "according  to  the  custom  of  the 
university."11  Thus  far  the  chancellor  had  gained 
powers  over  the  students  alone  and  only  over  their 
minor  offences;  but  this  naturally  led  up  to  the  royal 
grants  of  12S5,12  when  he  was  released  from  any  surveil- 
lance of  the  bishop,  although  he  was  given  as  yet  no  well 
defined  jurisdictional  powers.  If  a  layman  gravely  in- 
jured a  clerk,  so  ran  the  grant,  he  was  to  be  placed  in 
Oxford  castle  to  remain  there  until  the  chancellor  and 
university  were  satisfied.  If  the  injury  was  slight  he  was 
to  be  imprisoned  in  the  town  gaol.  Those  scholars 
who  gravely  or  slightly  injured  a  layman  were  subject  to 
a  like  imprisonment  at  the  will  of  the  chancellor.  The 
important  point  in  this  letter  is  not  that  he  could 
release  scholars  accused  of  light  offenses,  for  he  already 
did  this,  but  that  he  could  now  release  scholars  accused 
of  more  serious  crimes,  and,  especially,  that  he  was  given 
powers  over  laymen.  The  latter,  though  not  a  case  of 
direct  jurisdiction,  would  amount  to  the  same  thing, 
for  he  might  keep  the  laymen  in  prison  until  they  fully 
satisfied  his  demands. 

The  settlement  of  the  chancellor's  judicial  powers  over 
such  cases  as  have  been  mentioned  which  occurred  in  1290 
was  preserved  with  spme  additions  and  corrections  dur- 
ing the  remainder  of  our  period.  To  the  parliament  of 
that  year  the  burgesses,  jealous  of  the  increasing  powers 
of  the  university,  made  their  complaints,  and  the  king 
acting  as  an  arbitrator  settled  the  points  in  dispute.13 
Answering  the  complaint  of  the  mayor  and  burgesses 
that  the  chancellor  released  men  arrested  and  imprison- 
ed for  violence  by  the  officials  of  the  town,  Edward  de- 
fined his  criminal  jurisdiction.  The  chancellor,  hence- 
forward, was  to  have  cognizance  of  all  trespasses  in  Ox- 
ford, where  a  clerk  was  a  party,  except  pleas  of  the 

11  Lyte,  op.  cit.,  45  and  notes. 

"Rogers,  op.  cit.,  213-215;  Stubbs,  Select  charters,  ed.  1895, 
377-378;  Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  394. 

13  Rot.  part.,  I.,  333;  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  46-56;  Rashdall,  op.  cit, 
II.,  II.,  401 ;  confirmed  8  Ed.  II.,  I  Ed.  III. 


19 

death  of  a  man  and  mayhem.  These  two  cases  are  al- 
ways excepted  when  grants  are  made  to  the  chancellor, 
a  new  formula  entering  under  Richard  II,  however, 
when  he  excepts  felony  and  mayhem.14  Cases  involving 
a  freehold  were  always  free  from  the  jurisdiction  as  they 
were  from  that  of  any  of  the  ecclesiastical  courts.  When 
Pope  Boniface  IX,  in  1395,  confirmed  the  liberties  of 
the  university  he  stated  that  cases  of  homicide,  mutila- 
tion and  freehold  were  not  within  the  cognizance  of  the 
chancellor's  court.15  Our  suspicion  that  the  chancellor 
fined  those  laymen  who  had  injured  clerks  and  were  in 
consequence  imprisoned,  is  confirmed  by  the  complaint 
of  the  burgesses  that  he  only  releases  such  men  after 
the  payment  of  such  heavy  sums  of  money  that  they  are 
ruined.  In  answer  to  this  petition  the  king  commanded 
moderation.  The  chancellor  also  received  a  distinct 
addition  to  his  judicial  authority  over  civil  cases.  He 
was  given  the  right  to  jurisdiction,  where  a  scholar  was  a 
party,  over  all  persons  passing  through  Oxford,  and 
who  were  not  burgesses  of  that  place,  in  cases  of  con- 
tracts and  trespasses  made  in  Oxford.  Further  provi- 
sions were  added  that  the  chancellor  should  not  release 
scholars  imprisoned  for  mayhem  or  wounding  until  it 
was  assured  that  the  victim  was  not  about  to  die  and, 
also,  that  all  burgesses  should  have  at  least  one  day's 
notice  to  appear  before  his  court.  These  being  in  ans- 
wer to  direct  complaints  show  the  excesses  to  which  the 
chancellor  was  liable. 

As  in  other  departments  of  the  activity  of  the  univer- 
sity, the  burgesses  of  Oxford  continually  found  cause 
for  complaint  in  the  exercise  of  the  chancellor's  judicial 
powers.  The  latter  also  had  reason  to  be  annoyed  at 
the  ill  treatment  and  neglect  of  the  townsmen.  His 
power  being  naturally  weakest  in  the  suburbs  of  Ox- 
ford disorderly  persons  fled  there,  feeling  safe  from  any 
interference  from  the  town  officials.  As  they  became 

"  Rashdall,  II.,  II.,  401. 
"Muw.  acad.,  I.,  78-81. 


20 

a  source  of  trouble  and  of  danger  to  such  peaceful  stu- 
dents who  might  have  to  pass  through  the  suburbs,  the 
chancellor  petitioned  parliament  for  redress  and  it  was 
ordered  that  the  town  officials  should  pursue  and  take 
such  persons  in  order  to  maintain  the  peace  of  the 
university.16  In  1318  the  preaching  friars  claimed  to 
be  exempt  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  chancellor  by  a 
papal  grant.  The  case  being  brought  before  Edward 
II,  he  decided  that  such  friars  were  subject  to  the  chan- 
cellor notwithstanding  any  grants  of  privileges  from  the 
pope.17  The  burgesses,  on  their  part,  complained  that 
the  university  courts  attracted  royal  pleas,  fining  and 
punishing  those  who  accused  scholars  of  felonies.18 
They  also  charged  the  chancellor  with  drawing  to  his 
court  contracts  between  laymen  and  complained  that  he 
heavily  fined  the  contestants  and  excommunicated  all 
those  who  refused  to  submit  to  his  judgments.19  Other 
complaints  were  made  that  he  gained  cognizance  through 
unlawful  means  of  cases  involving  rents  of  free  tene- 
ments.20 The  case  of  Walter  de  Harewell  is  a  good  ex- 
ample of  the  way  in  which  the  chancellor  abused  his 
power.21  This  man  was  accused  by  a  clerk,  William 
de  Wyneye,  of  a  crime  done  outside  of  the  limits  of  the 
chancellor's  jurisdiction  in  a  foreign  country.  Never- 
theless the  chancellor  took  cognizance  of  the  case  and, 
in  spite  of  the  protests  of  Walter,  committed  him  to 
prison  until  he  should  consent  to  pay  a  sum  of  money 
to  William  and  until  he  should  find  sureties  for  his  good 
faith.  When  he  had  done  this  his  misfortunes  did  not 
end,  for,  having  entered  his  house  on  his  way  to  prison 
in  order  to  make  secure  his  chests  and  doors,  he  in- 

"Rot.  parl,  I.,  32;a;  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  III.,  Smith,  Parl.  pet., 
1 1 1-112;  Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  II.,  1313-17,  321;  cf.  Ibid.,  Ed.  HI., 
1327-30,  23. 

"Wood,  I.,  399;   Cal.  close  rolls,  Ed.  II.,  1318-23,  31. 

18  O.  H.  S-,  Coll.,  III.,  Smith,  op.  cit.,  122  (circa  1320-22). 

"  Ibid.,  126-127  (2  Ed.  III). 

"  Ibid. 

21  Rot.  parl,  II.,  i6b ;  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  III.,  Smith,  op.  cit.,  128 
(1328). 


21 

curred  the  wrath  of  the  chancellor  and  was  banished 
from  the  town  and  his  goods  seized.  The  latter  also 
threatened  to  imprison  him  for  sixty  days  if  he  ever 
again  entered  Oxford.  The  king  interfered  in  this 
case,  ordering  the  angry  chancellor  not  to  pursue  the 
matter  further.  The  jealousy  of  the  local  officials  of 
the  university  also  showed  itself  in  their  reculance  to 
enforce  the  commands  of  the  chancellor,  for  Edward  III 
has  continually  to  admonish  the  sheriff  and  the  mayor 
and  bailiffs  to  do  their  duty  towards  the  university.22 

The  last  and  greatest  dispute  over  the  chancellor's 
judicial  powers  occurred  during  the  years  preceding 
1356  when  he  contended  with  Richard  d'Amory  for 
authority  over  the  hundred  without  the  north  gate  of 
Oxford.  The  dispute  was  a  general  one  involving  mat- 
ters of  market  regulation  and  the  care  of  roads  as  well 
as  the  judicial  affairs  of  the  suburb.  Richard  claimed 
to  have  cognizance  of  all  offences  against  the  peace  com- 
mitted within  the  hundred,  with  all  the  fines  arising  from 
this  jurisdiction.  He  included  within  these  general 
lines  cases  where  a  scholar  or  other  privileged  person 
was  a  party,  holding  that  the  royal  grants  did  not  ex- 
tend into  his  district.  The  matter  came  before  Edward 
in  the  parliament  of  1356  and  was  settled  there.23  As 
a  result  of  this  settlement  the  chancellor's  jurisdiction 
was  defined  to  include  this  territory.  In  it  he  was  given 
cognizance  of  all  cases  of  infringements  of  the  university 
statutes  or  other  pleas  where  a  scholar  or  scholar's  serv- 
ant, in  the  general  sense,  was  a  party,  pleas  of  mayhem, 
murder  and  freehold  excepted. 

The  university  received  no  new  judicial  powers  during 
the  fourteenth  century  beyond  those  already  mentioned. 
Early  in  the  fifteenth  century  a  new  judicial  official,  the 
seneschal  or  steward,  was  given  some  new  powers  by 

22  Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1330-34,  208-209  (1331);    Ibid.,  Ed.  III., 
1334-38,  67  (i334). 

23  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  173-180. 


22 

Henry  IV.24  When  one  of  those  who  were  not  students 
but  who  enjoyed  their  privileges  was  indicted  for  a 
felony  before  one  of  the  royal  justices,  the  chancellor 
was  allowed  henceforth  to  demand  the  man  so  that  he 
might  be  tried  before  his  appointee,  the  steward,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  laws  of  the  land.  The  jury  in  such 
cases  was  to  consist  half  of  privileged  persons  and  half 
of  townsmen. 

The  development  of  the  judicial  power  of  the  univer- 
sity of  Cambridge  was  in  some  respects  much  more 
slow  than  in  Oxford,  yet  the  final  result  is  about  the 
same  in  both  universities.  The  first  signs  of  the  future 
criminal  jurisdiction  of  the  chancellor  appear  in  1268 
when  it  was  enacted,  as  for  Oxford  in  1255,  that  in  the 
event  of  a  layman  seriously  injuring  a  clerk,  or  a  clerk 
a  layman,  the  culprit  was  to  be  imprisoned  until  satis- 
faction had  been  rendered  according  to  the  ideas  of  the 
chancellor.25  The  authority  thus  given  to  the  chancel- 
lor would  have  the  result  noticed  in  the  case  of  Oxford, 
that  is,  it  would  amount  to  a  grant  of  the  right  to  fine 
and  punish,  for  the  prisoner  might  not  be  released  until 
he  had  fully  satisfied  the  demands  of  the  university  of- 
ficial. That  Edward  I  allowed  this  privilege  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  during  his  reign  certain  clerks,  imprison- 
ed in  the  Tower  of  London,  were,  upon  the  chancellor's 
request,  handed  over  to  him.26  The  complaint  was  made, 
moreover,  in  1293  that  a  layman  imprisoned  by  the  lat- 
ter had  been  released  by  the  town  officials.27  The  power 
of  imprisoning  and  detention  formerly  limited  to  grave 
injuries  was,  in  1317,  extended  to  those  of  a  less  serious 
nature,  but  no  grant  of  any  authority  to  try  criminal 
cases  was  made  at  the  time.28  Some  further  enactments- 
were  included  intended  to  preserve  order  within  the 

84  Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  409-410 ;    Statutes  of  the  colleges 
of  Oxford,  III.,  50. 
*  Cooper,  I.,  50-51. 

26  Ibid.,  I.,62  (1289). 

27  Ibid.,  I.,  67. 

28  Ibid.,  I.,  75-76. 


23 

town.  No  burgess  should  knowingly  hide  a  transgressor 
against  a  scholar.29  Those  bailiffs  who  neglected  to  do 
their  duty  when  a  scholar  was  injured  or  slain  should  be 
fined  together  with  the  townsmen.30  The  succeeding 
king,  Edward  III,  finally  gave  the  university  some  more 
positive  powers.  During  the  year  1352  he  granted  that 
the  chancellor  of  Cambridge  should  have  cognizance  of 
all  trespasses  and  excesses,  where  one  party  was  a 
clerk,  excepting  cases  of  mayhem  and  felony.31  This 
promising  beginning  was  not  destined  to  last,  for  dur- 
ing the  following  year  it  was  repealed  as  being  injurious 
to  the  interests  of  Queen  Isabella,  to  whom  the  fee-farm 
of  the  town  had  been  granted.32  The  reason  for  this 
was  that  the  revenues  of  the  borough  would  be  diminish- 
ed by  the  withdrawal  of  the  fines  from  its  court.  In 
1354  Edward  sent  letters  close  to  the  justices  of  the 
peace  for  the  county  of  Cambridge  commanding  them 
to  supersede  all  processes  in  their  courts  against  sta- 
tioners, book  binders,  writers  and  illuminators,  connect- 
ed with  the  university,  except  in  cases  of  felony  and 
mayhem,  the  cognizance  of  all  such  cases  belonging  to 
the  chancellor,  as  had  been  accustomed.33  This  is  pos- 
sibly the  royal  recognition  of  the  growth  of  a  university 
custom,  allowing  the  chancellor  to  try  cases  in  which 
such  privileged  persons  were  defendants,  although  no 
official  record  of  such  a  privilege  can  be  found.  At  most 
it  was  a  limited  jurisdiction.  Nevertheless  it  was  not 
until  1383,  long  years  after  Oxford  had  received  this  au- 
thority, that  Cambridge  finally  received  its  full  right  of 
trying  criminal  cases.  Richard  II,  in  that  year,  conferred 
upon  the  chancellor  the  cognizance  of  all  cases  of  tres- 
pass and  misdemeanor,  done  within  the  town  of  Cam- 
bridge or  its  suburbs,  where  a  scholar  or  other  privileged 

29  Cooper,  I.,  75-76. 
10  Ibid. 

31  Ibid.,  I.,  103 ;  Dyer,  Privileges  of  the  univ.  of  Cambr.,  I.,  19. 
I.,   19. 

82  Ibid.,  I.,  104,  (1353). 

83  Ibid.,  I.,  104;   Docs.  rel.  univ.  and  coll.  Cambr.,  I.,  21. 


24 

person  was  a  party.34  There  some  examples  recorded 
soon  afterwards  of  the  chancellor  using  this  power  to 
have  cases  removed  to  his  court  for  trial  and  in  this 
state  the  matter  rests  for  our  period.35 

The  growth  of  the  chancellor's  jurisdiction  over  civil 
cases  was  not  so  far  behind  that  of  Oxford  as  was  the 
development  of  the  powers  already  described.  The  uni- 
versity sent  a  petition  to  the  parliament  of  1304  that 
their  chancellor  might  have  the  cognizance  of  cases  of 
contracts  and  covenants  between  scholars  and  laymen, 
the  royal  prohibition  not  to  run  in  such  cases.36  To 
this  Edward  I  answered  that  they  should  have  such 
powers  as  the  university  of  Oxford  had  and  he  followed 
this  up  with  the  actual  grant  during  the  next  year,  1305. 3T 
The  members  of  the  university  were  then  given  the  right 
to  cite  the  burgesses  of  the  town  before  the  chancellor's 
court  for  all  personal  actions,  the  king  promising  not 
to  hinder  such  actions  by  his  prohibition.  The  let- 
ter patent  of  the  year  1317  was  still  more  definite.  This 
grant  allowed  "that  all  causes  of  clerks  concerning  loans, 
gifts  and  receipts,  the  taxing  or  leasing  of  houses, 
the  hire,  sale  or  loan  of  horses,  cloth  or  victuals,  and 
all  other  contracts  respecting  movable  things  happen- 
ing in  the  town  or  suburbs,  should  be  decided  before  the 
chancellor  of  the  university  only."38  Edward  III  further 
made  a  grant  of  full  power  over  personal  actions  in  I327.3' 

In  Cambridge,  as  in  Oxford,  the  growth  of  the  chan- 
cellor's power  was  attended  with  certain  excesses  on  his 
part  which  caused  a  feeling  of  jealousy  to  arise  in  the 
town.  The  burgesses  complained  in  1327  that  the  clerks 
of  the  university  bought  up  actions  of  debt,  trespass  and 
contracts  of  the  burgesses  and  of  strangers  and  cited 

84  Cooper,  I.,   127. 

"Ibid.,  I.,  140  (1391);    Ibid.,  147  (1401);    Ibid.,  I.,  159  (1417)- 

M  Rot.  parl,  I.,  :6ib. 

37  Cooper,  I.,  71 ;  Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  I.,  1301-07,  317 ;  repeated  in 
Ibid.,  Ed.  II.,  1315-17,  102  (1314)- 

"Ibid.,  I.,  76;  Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  II.,  1313-17,  620;  cf.  Cooper,  I., 
95  (1343). 

"Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1327-30,  61  (1327). 


25 

these  men  to  appear  before  the  chancellor's  court,  the 
latter  enforcing  their  appearance  by  ecclesiastical  cen- 
sures.40 The  chancellor  was  at  once  commanded  to 
forbid  such  action  as  it  was  contrary  to  the  law  of  the 
land.  The  recurrence  of  such  complaints  at  both  uni- 
versities leads  to  the  belief  that  the  scholars  were  doing 
a  little  profitable  speculation,  thinking,  doubtless,  to  re- 
ceive a  favorable  verdict  in  the  chancellor's  court.  That 
they  should  even  do  this  openly  casts  a  reflection  upon  the 
impartiality  of  this  court.  There  was  also  some  cause 
for  complaint  on  the  other  side.  The  chancellor  and 
university  in  1389  complained  to  parliament  of  the  mis- 
deeds of  the  burgesses.41  They  stated  that  the  chancel- 
lor had  been  given  cognizance  of  all  personal  actions  and 
misdemeanors,  except  mayhem  and  felony,  and  that 
several  scholars,  having  been  indicted  by  the  townsmen 
for  crimes  within  the  above  limits  the  said  indictments 
were  quashed.  Thereupon  the  townsmen  indicted  the 
chancellor  and  proctors  for  felony  and  would  even  have 
seized  the  former  had  he  not  fled.  It  was  also  charged 
that  the  burgesses  accused  the  university  officials  in  the 
courts  upon  the  slightest  pretexts  and  on  that  account 
they  asked  that  they  might  not  be  indicted  for  any  offences 
before  the  townsmen. 

The  year  1383,  which  witnessed  the  first  complete 
grant  of  criminal  jurisdiction,  was  also,  and  in  the  same 
grant,  the  year  of  the  more  accurate  definition  of  the 
civil  jurisdiction  of  the  chancellor.  Because  of  the 
vagueness  of  the  privileges  of  the  latter  in  cases  where 
a  scholar  was  a  party,  some  of  the  royal  justices  had  dis- 
allowed these  powers.  In  consequence  of  a  complaint 
to  the  king  to  this  effect  he  granted  to  them  in  the 
above  year  the  following  privileges,  or,  we  might  say, 
definition  of  privileges.42  The  chancellor,  or  his  deputies, 
were  to  have  the  right  of  trying  all  manner  of  personal 

"  Cooper,  I.,  82. 
"Rot.  parl,  III.,  260. 
42  Cooper,  I.,  127. 


26 

pleas,  debts  and  all  contracts  and  injuries  as  well  as  of 
trespasses  against  the  peace  and  misdemeanors  done  in 
Cambridge  or  its  suburbs,  where  a  master,  scholar, 
scholar's  servant  or  common  minister  of  the  university 
was  a  party.  Such  pleas  were  to  be  held  where  the 
chancellor  might  see  fit  in  the  town  or  suburbs,  and  he 
might  judge  them  according  to  the  laws  and  customs  of 
the  university.  All  royal  justices  were  commanded  to 
allow  the  chancellor  and  his  successors  the  full  cogni- 
zance of  all  such  cases  and  were  forbidden  to  interfere 
unless  he  be  found  to  be  unjust.  Those  convicted  were 
to  be  imprisoned  in  the  Castle  of  Oxford  or  in  any  place 
in  the  town  where  the  chancellor  might  desire  them  to  be 
placed  and  the  sheriff  and  the  mayor  and  bailiffs  were 
ordered  to  receive  and  keep  such  prisoners,  who  might  be 
sent  to  either  the  castle  or  the  town  gaol.  This  is  the 
fullest  and  most  complete  statement  of  the  chancellor's 
judicial  powers  that  is  extant  for  our  period. 

There  is  in  Cambridge  a  curious  example  of  an  ex- 
empt jurisdiction  within  that  of  the  chancellor  which  has 
no  parallel  in  Oxford.  In  1276  there  arose  a  dispute  be- 
tween the  master  of  glomery,  the  superintendent  of  the 
grammar  schools  and  the  chancellor  of  the  university. 
Hugh  de  Balsham,  bishop  of  Ely,  settled  the  matter  by 
the  followong  decision.43  In  cases  of  disputes  where 
two  glomerals,  the  grammar  school  boys,  were  the  par- 
ties, or  when  they  were  the  defendants  in  cases  with 
scholars  or  townsmen,  the  master  of  glomery  was  given 
jurisdiction.  If,  however,  the  case  involved  the  rent  of 
houses  rated  by  the  masters  and  burgesses,  or  some  grave 
crime,  the  chancellor  was  to  have  jurisdiction  of  the 
matter,  as  he  should  also  have  if  when  a  scholar  was 
the  plaintiff,  the  latter  should  appeal  to  him.  Natur- 
ally in  all  cases  where  the  scholars  were  defendants  the 
chancellor's  court  had  full  jurisdiction,  nevertheless  this 
court  could  not  interfere  in  any  of  the  above  cases  where 

"Cooper,  I.,  56-58;    Fuller,  Hist.  Cambr.,  47-51;    Rashdall,  op. 
cit.,  II.,  II.,  555. 


27 

the  glomerals  or  townsmen  alone  constituted  the  contest- 
ants. 

The  same  period  which  witnessed  the  growth  of  the 
lay  jurisdiction  of  the  chancellor  also  witnessed  his  rise 
into  prominence  as  an  ecclesiastical  judge.  Although 
it  must  be  acknowledged  that  royal  grants  or  interfer- 
ence play  but  little  part  in  this  development,  the  know- 
ledge of  the  favorable  attitude  of  the  crown  toward  the 
universities,  seems  to  have  been  the  strongest  incentive 
leading  the  chancellor  to  strive  for  additional  powers  in 
other  directions.  In  dealing  with  the  chancellor's  juris- 
diction over  ecclesiastical  cases  it  will  be  necessary  to 
confine  most  of  our  attention  to  Oxford.  The  Cam- 
bridge records  are  meagre  in  the  first  place,  and,  more- 
over, that  university  remains  to  a  greater  exent  under 
the  control  of  the  bishop  during  our  period  than  does 
Oxford. 

Until  the  year  1214  nothing  definite  is  known  of  the 
relations  between  the  university  of  Oxford  and  the 
bishop  of  Lincoln.  At  that  time  a  subordinate  of  the 
bishop,  the  chancellor,  is  mentioned  as  being  "set  over" 
the  scholars  to  exercise  over  them  the  powers  which  the 
bishop  would  otherwise  directly  enjoy.  Perhaps  be- 
cause of  the  distance  of  Oxford  from  the  episcopal  city 
and  partly,  perhaps,  because  of  the  growing  independence 
of  the  university  in  other  matters  through  royal  grants, 
this  institution  during  the  following  decades  developed 
a  number  of  customs  which,  to  a  large  extent,  interfered 
with  the  episcopal  authority  within  its  limits.  By  the 
year  1280  the  university  regarded  its  position  strong 
enough  to  contest  the  authority  of  the  bishop  over  its 
members.44  The  congregation  in  that  year  declared 
the  following  rights  to  have  been  theirs  since  time  out 
of  mind :  that  a  scholar  of  the  university  might  cite  his 
adversary  before  the  chancellor's  court  and  that  the  de- 
fendant must  answer  there,  that  the  probate  of  the 
wills  of  scholars  belonged  of  right  to  the  chancellor, 

44  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  41-43;   Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  422. 


28 

that  to  the  chancellor  belonged  the  right  of  investigation 
into  the  moral  misdeeds  of  the  scholars,  and  that  no 
master  or  scholar  could  be  compelled  to  appear  before 
any  other  than  the  chancellor's  court  for  contracts  en- 
tered into  within  the  university.  This  usurpation  of 
power,  for  it  was  no  less,  was  resisted  by  the  bishop, 
but,  during  the  ensuing  year  these  claims  were  ratified 
by  a  provincial  synod  of  Canterbury,  the  only  practical 
power  left  to  the  bishop  being  that  of  hearing  appeals 
from  the  university  courts.45  At  the  end  of  the  thir- 
teenth century,  therefore,  the  chancellor  had  gained  an 
almost  independent  position  with  respect  to  the  epis- 
copal judicial  powers. 

Not  until  a  later  period  did  the  university  gain  an 
exemption  from  the  interference  of  the  archdeacon  of 
Oxford.  Certain  customs  seem  to  have  grown  up  here 
as  in  the  case  of  the  episcopal  authority  which  were  not 
acknowledged  to  exist  by  the  archdeacon.  When  car- 
dinal de  Mota  was  made  archdeacon  in  1312-13,  he  did 
not  come  to  England  but  sent  deputies  who  made  them- 
selves extremely  obnoxious  by  their  extortions.46  The 
university  in  1325  began  to  resist  their  authority47  and 
continued  the  fight  until  the  controversy  was  settled  by 
a  compromise  in  I345,48  after  the  king  had  several  times 
interceded  with  the  pope  on  behalf  of  Oxford.49  In  the 
above  year  it  was  decided  that  the  chancellor  was  to 
have  "archidiaconal  authority  over  all  doctors,  masters 
and  scholars,  religious  and  lay,  as  also  over  all  rectors, 
vicars  and  chaplains  within  the  university,  unless  they 
held  cures  in  Oxford,  in  which  case  they  were  subject- 
ed to  the  ordinary  jurisdiction  of  the  archdeacon."50 
The  chancellor  was  also  to  have  jurisdiction  over  a  well 
defined  list  of  scholars'  servants  and  other  privileged 

48  Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  422-423. 

46  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  I.,  16-19. 

47  Wood,  I.,  407-408. 

48  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  148-152. 
"Hardy,  Syllabus,  I.,  234;    I.,  251. 
80  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  I.,  19. 


29 

persons  except  in  cases  involving  the  wills  of  writers, 
which  were  reserved  to  the  archdeacon.  Over  all  per- 
sons coming  under  the  chancellor's  general  authority, 
but  not  included  in  the  above  list,  the  archdeacon  was  to 
have  the  rights  pertaining  to  his  office.51  This  is  the 
last  definition  of  the  chancellor's  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion until  the  final  statement  of  the  pope  in  1395,  when 
he  exempted  the  university  from  the  jurisdiction  of  all 
archbishops,  legates,  bishops  and  other  ecclesiastical 
judges.52  By  this  bull  the  pope  also  gave  to  the  chan- 
cellor judicial  authority  over  "exempt  persons  such  as 
the  mendicants  and  monks  of  exempt  monasteries,  and 
exempt  cases,  such  as  assaults  on  clerks."53 

The  question  of  appeals  has  already  been  slightly 
noticed.  The  bishop,  as  was  then  said,  could  be  appeal- 
ed to  after  the  university  courts  had  failed  to  give  satis- 
faction. Even  this  practice  soon  died  out  and  in  1368 
the  course  of  appeals  was  said  to  be  as  follows  :  appeal 
in  all  cases,  temporal  or  spiritual  should  be  from  any  of 
the  chancellor's  deputies  to  the  chancellor  himself,  from 
him  to  the  congregation  of  regents,  from  their  decision 
to  the  congregation  of  regents  and  non-regents  and 
finally  from  their  judgment  in  civil  cases  to  the  king  and 
to  the  pope  in  spiritual  matters.54  The  king  also,  in 
order  to  strengthen  this  university  right  of  deciding  its 
own  cases,  forbade  other  ecclesiastical  courts  to  enter- 
tain cases  pertaining  to  the  chancellor's  jurisdiction,55 
and  also  forbade  any  one  to  appeal  out  of  the  kingdom 
cases  belonging  to  this  same  official.56 

While  the  university  of  Cambridge  was  far  behind 
Oxford  in  gaining  exemption  from  the  episcopal  author- 
ity, it  preceded  the  latter  by  many  years  in  the  settle- 


.  acad.,  I.,  148-152;    Wilkins,  Concilia,  II.,  526-528;    CX 
H.  S.,  Coll.,  I.,  16-19;    Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  423  n.  2. 
52  Ibid.,  I.,  78-80;    Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  430. 
"Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  430. 
"Mwn.  acad.,  I.,  230-232. 
"Wood,  I.,  478  (1362). 
-Ibid.,  1,480  (1367);   I-,  515  (1384). 


30 

ment  of  its  relations  with  the  archdeacon.  A  contro- 
versy having  arisen  between  the  university  and  the  arch- 
deacon of  Ely  concerning  their  respective  jurisdictions, 
the  matter  was,  in  1276,  referred  to  Hugh  de  Belsham, 
the  bishop  of  Ely,  and  by  him  settled.57  It  seems  that 
a  custom  had  grown  up  in  the  university  by  which 
neither  the  scholars  nor  their  servants  appeared  before 
the  archdeacon  for  their  misdeeds.  After  strictly  de- 
fining the  privileged  classes,  the  bishop  enacted  that  they 
should,  as  in  former  times,  appear  before  the  chancellor, 
while  their  families  should  answer  to  the  archdeacon  for 
all  cases  belonging  to  his  jurisdiction.  All  the  clergy 
holding  cures  in  Cambridge,  as  in  Oxford  later,  were  to 
be  subject  to  the  archdeacon's  authority.  Those,  how- 
ever, who  came  to  the  town  for  the  purpose  of  studying 
there  were  subject  to  the  chancellor.  At  the  end  of  this 
settlement  the  bishop  expressly  reserves  to  himself  or 
to  his  official  all  appeals  in  ecclesiastical  matters.  The 
commanding  tone  of  the  document  illustrates  very  well 
the  strong  position  of  the  bishop  at  this  time. 

The  bishop  of  Ely,  within  whose  diocese  Cambridge 
lay,  long  held  this  position  of  control  over  the  univer- 
sity. It  must  not  be  understood  that  this  control  meant 
an  active  interference  in  the  minutiae  of  university  af- 
fairs, for  the  chancellor  was  the  bishop's  representative 
in  all  such  matters.  Moreover,  custom,  as  elsewhere, 
would  tend  to  make  the  position  of  the  university  inde- 
pendent in  all  but  exceptional  cases,  long  before 
the  bishop  would  have  acknowledged  any  formal 
rights.  During  the  thirteenth  century  the  bishop 
heard  appeals  from  the  decisions  of  the  chancellor,58  de- 
cided disputes  between  the  latter  and  the  masters,69 
and  interfered  in  other  ways;  but  during  the  fourteenth 
century  he  forbade  frivolous  appeals  to  himself  by  the 
scholars  and  others  under  the  chancellor's  jurisdiction.60 


"  Cooper,  I.,  56-58 ;    Fuller,  op.  cit.,  47  sq. 
68  Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  549. 
"'Cooper,  I,  67  (1294). 
"Ibid.,  I.,  94  (I34O- 


31 

Some  find  in  the  papal  bull  of  1318  an  exemption  of  the 
chancellor  from  the  supervising  power  of  the  bishop, 
yet  it  has  to  be  acknowledged  that  this  exemption  was 
not  recognized  by  the  bishops  of  Ely  during  the  period 
following  that  date.61  It  was  not  until  1392  that  the 
king  commanded  the  bishop  not  to  send  citations  in- 
terfering with  the  chancellor's  court62  and  it  was  not  un- 
til 1433  that  the  chancellor  had  his  exclusive  ecclesiasti- 
cal jurisdiction  finally  recognized  by  the  pope.63 

As  a  lay  judge  and  as  an  ecclesiastic,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  chancellor  had  gained  wide  judicial  powers.  His 
position  as  the  head  of  the  university  included  yet  other 
judicial  duties  which  may,  in  theory  at  least,  be  distin- 
guished from  the  above  cases.  He  had  the  power  to 
punish  the  students  under  certain  of  the  university 
statutes,  which  power  was  due  solely  to  the  position  of 
these  bodies.  His  authority  over  the  servants  of  schol- 
ars and  over  the  various  privileged  artisans  can  also 
be  referred  to  this  side  of  his  three-fold  position.  In 
the  main,  however,  this  distinction  is  theoretical,  being  so 
interwoven  with  his  other  powers  as  to  be  hardly  distin- 
guished from  them:  It  is  also  of  very  little  importance 
from  the  standpoint  of  this  study. 

The  course  of  the  development  of  the  several  judi- 
cial privileges  of  the  chancellor  having  been  traced,  his 
means  of  enforcing  these  must  be  shown.  Some  coer- 
cive power  was  absolutely  necessary  so  that  he  might 
bring  an  offending  scholar  to  terms  if  the  latter  should 
refuse  to  obey  his  summons  to  appear  at  court.  In  this 
section  some  attention  will  also  be  paid  to  the  means 
of  punishment  in  the  hands  of  the  university  officials. 

As  an  ecclesiastic  the  chancellor  had  various  means 
of  punishing  offenders  and  of  enforcing  his  judgments. 
Being  a  judge  in  a  clerical  court  he  could  impose  the 
various  penalties  and  punishments  peculiar  to  the 

61  Mullinger,  Univ.  of  Cambridge,  I.,  145-146. 

"B.M.  MSS.,  5845,  fol.  258;   Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  549-550. 

"Cooper,  I.,  185. 


32 

clergy;  he  could  and  did  imprison  the  scholars,  as  we 
have  seen  him  doing  in  the  thirteenth  century ;  and  he 
could  inflict  the  greatest  punishment  in  the  hands  of  an 
ecclesiastic,  excommunication,  upon  those  who  dis- 
pleased him  or  who  refused  to  obey  his  commands. 

During  the  thirteenth  century  the  chancellors  of  both 
universities  lacked  the  episcopal  privilege  of  calling 
upon  the  secular  arm  to  enforce  their  excommunications, 
yet  they,  nevertheless,  did  excommunicate  men.64  The 
first  step  taken  by  Oxford  was  to  gain  the  assistance 
of  the  bishop  and  archbishop  for  enforcing  its  judg- 
ments. In  1279  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  promised 
that  all  persons  excommunicated  by  the  chancellor  of 
Oxford  should  be  delivered  to  him  no  matter  in  what 
diocese  they  might  be.65  Seemingly  this  was  not  suffi- 
cient, for  in  1295  the  chancellor  asked  the  aid  of  several 
of  the  bishops  separately  and  some  of  them  promised  to 
take  from  the  clerks  the  fruits  of  their  livings  if  they 
should  persist  in  their  refusal  to  submit  to  the  chan- 
cellor.66 

The  most  effectual  mode  of  enforcing  excommunica- 
tion was  to  gain  the  aid  of  the  secular  power  through 
the  grant  of  the  writ  named  "de  excommunicato  ca- 
piendo."  As  often  used,  excommunication  was  in  a  way 
the  last  resort,  the  outlawry,  of  the  ecclesiastic  and  it 
was  necessary  that  it  should  be  efficient.  If,  therefore, 
the  man  under  the  ban  refused  to  appear  after  forty 
days  had  elapsed,  the  crown  granted  that  the  bishop 
might,  by  his  writ,  call  upon  the  sheriff  to  take  and  im- 
prison the  guilty  man  until  he  satisfied  the  claims  of  the 
church.67  The  right  to  have  this  writ  was  given  to  the 
chancellor  of  Oxford  by  Edward  II  for  a  term  of  five 

"Wood,  I.,  262  (1262);  Ibid.,  I.,  317  (1283);  Cooper,  I.,  59 
(1278). 

85  Mun.  acad..  I.,  341. 

"Wood  I.,  347. 

"Makower,  Cons.  hist,  of  the  church  of  England,  437;  Stubbs, 
Cons,  hist.,  ed.  1896,  III.,  357;  Maitland,  Roman  canon  law,  58-59, 


33 

years,68  and  the  grant  was  renewed  with  great  regularity 
during  the  fourteenth  century  until  Henry  IV  bestowed 
it  for  twenty-five  years.69  Cambridge  does  not  seem  to 
have  gained  the  right  to  demand  this  writ  before  1383, 
for  in  1382  the  chancellor  appealed  to  the  bishop  of  Ely 
to  send  letters  of  notification  to  the  king  concerning 
certain  of  his  excommunications.70  But  in  1383  Richard 
II  gave  him  the  right  to  signify  his  excommuni- 
cations directly  to  the  chancellor  of  England,  who  would 
issue  the  writ  named  "in  the  same  manner  as  the  chan- 
cellor of  the  university  of  Oxford  has  the  like  privi- 
lege."71 

Disorderly  and  riotous  students  and  those  breaking 
the  statutes  in  various  ways  were  by  the  terms  of  the 
university  regulations  subject  to  various  punishments, 
such  as  fines72  or  imprisonment.83  The  greatest  penalty 
indicated  in  the  statutes,  banishment  from  the  town, 
seems  to  have  been  assumed  upon  analogy  with  the 
practice  of  the  town,  it  being  the  most  effectual  means 
of  cutting  off  the  offender  from  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  the  university.74 

The  chancellor  as  a  lay  judge  was  in  a  peculiar  posi- 
tion. Though  he  was  the  holder  of  an  exempt  jurisdic- 
tion, he  had  no  prison  of  his  own,  not  even  an  ecclesias- 
tical gaol  and  he  had  but  few  police  officials  to  aid  him. 
It  was,  therefore,  necessary  that,  although  he  was  a 
cleric  exercising  ecclesiastical  powers,  he  should  be 
fitted  into  the  administrative  machinery  of  the  lay 
power. 

Almost  from  the  beginnings  of  the  university  we  find 
that  the  mayor  and  bailiffs  of  the  two  towns  are  expect- 

08  O.  H.  S.  Coll.  III.,  Smith,  Par/,  pet.,  121-122;   cf.  Ibid.,  96. 
"Wood,  I.,  536  (1399)  ;  other  examples— Ibid.,  I.,  433,  437,  443, 
479,  etc. 

70  Cooper,  I.,  126. 

71  Cal.  p.  r.,  Rich.  II.,  1381-85,  241. 

"  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  304-306,  314,  506,  666. 

"Ibid.,  I.,  94. 

74  Ibid.,  I.,  119,  122,  127;   Cooper,  I.,  57;   Rot.  parl,  II.,  i6b. 

3 


34 

ed  to  assist  the  chancellor  in  arresting  disorderly  stu- 
dents, the  royal  commands  soon  leaving  no  room   for 
doubt  upon  this  point.75    The  sheriff  also  from  an  early 
date  could  be  called  upon  by  the  chancellor  to  aid  him. 
In   1231   both  the  universities  were  given  the  right  to 
cite  the  sheriff  of  the  counties  to  their  assistance  with 
this  difference,  that  while  the  chancellor  of  Cambridge 
had  to  ask  for  this  aid  through  the  bishop  of  Ely,76  the 
chancellor  of  Oxford  could  himself  call  directly  upon  the 
sheriff.77     Since  the  process  of  summoning  the  sheriff 
through  the  bishop  would  be  slow  work  at  best,  the 
Cambridge    grant   was    soon    amended,  the  chancellor 
being  given  the  right  of  direct  citation.78    A  reversal  of 
this   policy   occurred   in    1249,™    when    Henry   revoked 
his  former  grant,  but  it  was  again  renewed  in  1255. 80 
In  both  universities  during  the  remainder  of  our  period 
the  sheriff's  aid  was  at  the  command  of  the  chancellor 
whenever  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  enforce  order.81 
Ordinarily,  however,  the  chancellor  would  not  need  the 
assistance  of  the  sheriff,  his  own  officials  and  the  mayor 
and  bailiffs  being  sufficient  to  make  all  necessary  ar- 
rests. 

The  lack  of  a  prison  within  which  the  chancellor 
could  imprison  malefactors  was  remedied  in  a  similar 
fashion.  Henry  III  commanded  the  mayor  and  bailiffs 
of  Oxford  to  place  the  town  gaol  at  the  disposal  of  the 
chancellor  so  that  he  might  place  in  it  his  rebellious 
clerks.82  In  the  twenty-first  year  of  the  same  king's 
reign  he  ordered  that  the  royal  prison  in  Oxford  should 

"Rogers,  op.  cit.,  212  (1248);  Cooper,  I.,  44  (1242);  Ibid., 
I.  50  (1260). 

n  Royal  letters  Henry  III.,  Shirley,  I.,  396-397- 
17  Ibid.,  I.,  399- 

79  Cooper,  I.,  44  (1242). 
"Ibid.,   I.,  45- 

80  Ibid.,  I.,  46. 

81  B.  M.  MSS.,  Faustina,  C.  III.,  fol.  133  sq.;    the  same  com- 
mand repeated  for  Cambridge,  52  Henry  III.,  21  Ed.  I.,  10  Ed. 
II.,  20  Ed.  II..  i  Ed.  III.,  17  Rich.  II.,  etc.;    for  Oxford,  see 
Wood,  I.,  385,  404,  495. 

"Wood,  I.,  205   (15  Henry  III.). 


35 

be  open  to  the  chancellor  for  the  same  purpose.83  A 
more  definite  grant  was  made  during  the  year  1255, 
when  he  directed  that  in  cases  of  slight  injuries  of  a 
student  the  offending  clerk  or  layman  should  be  im- 
prisoned in  the  town  gaol,  while  for  graver  injuries  they 
were  to  be  imprisoned  in  Oxford  castle.84  At  the  end 
of  the  thirteenth  century  it  may  be  assumed  that  the 
chancellor  of  Oxford  had  full  rights  in  both  the  gaol 
and  castle.  Yet  here  again  internal  jealousies  made 
themselves  felt.  The  chancellor  made  the  charge  that, 
through  the  connivance  of  the  mayor  and  bailiffs,  the 
men  he  had  sent  to  the  town  gaol  were  released,  or,  at 
least,  allowed  to  escape.85  On  the  other  hand  the  bur- 
gesses complained  of  the  harsh  treatment  of  their  fellow 
townsmen  by  the  chancellor.86  Even  the  sheriff  had  his 
cause  for  complaint,  which  was  that  the  castle  was  over- 
crowded because  of  the  excessive  use  of  it  by  the  chan- 
cellor as  a  place  of  imprisonment  for  trivial  offenders.87 
During  the  thirteenth  century  it  seems  that  the  Cam- 
bridge only  gained  the  use  of  the  town  gaol.88  The 
castle  of  Cambridge  was  opened  to  him  in  1317,  because 
of  the  ill  treatment  accorded  to  those  students  impris- 
oned in  the  town  gaol.89  After  Edward  III  had  con- 
firmed this  privilege,90  the  burgess,  in  1327,  complained 
to  parliament  that  the  chancellor's  right  of  imprisoning 
laymen  in  the  castle  was  repugnant  to  their  borough 
privilege  of  not  being  impleaded  without  the  town  of 
Cambridge ;  the  castle  being  outside  of  the  town 
limits.91  But  the  protest  was  of  no  avail.  When  Rich- 
ard II  came  to  the  throne  he  gave  the  university  a  char- 

88  Rot.  claus.,  21  Henry  III.,  m.  igd. 
M  Rogers,  op.   cit,  213-215. 

MO.  H.  S.  Coll.,  III.,  Smith,  op.  cit.,  118;   Rot.  part.,  I.,  3733; 
O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  L,  125. 
M  Mttn.  acad.,  I.,  50  (1290). 

87  O.  H.  S.  Coll.,  III.,  Smith,  op.  cit,  134  (1334);    Rot.  parl., 
II.,  ?6b 

88  E.  g.  Cooper,  I.,  50-51  (1268). 
"  Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  II.,  1313-17,  665. 
"Cooper,  I.,  82-83  (1327). 

91  Ibid.,  I,  90. 


ter  fully  and  finally  confirming  the  right  of  the  chancel- 
lor to  imprison  all  persons  convicted  before  him  in  the 
castle  of  Cambridge,  or  elsewhere,  as  he  might  see  fit,  and 
the  sheriff  and  town  officials  were  commanded  to  re- 
ceive and  guard  such  prisoners.82  The  usual  complaints 
of  mutual  ill  treatment  also  occur  here.  In  1335  the 
university  claimed  that  the  prisoners  were  released  by 
the  town  officials,83  and  the  king  had  to  send  an  order 
to  them  that  no  such  releases  should  be  made  until  the 
chancellor  had  demanded  the  prisoners.94  If  they  re- 
fused to  obey  the  king  threatened  dire  punishment. 

There  is  one  interesting  example  of  the  royal  meas- 
ures in  favor  of  the  university,  which  must  be  noticed 
before  leaving  the  question  of  the  chancellor's  power  of 
imprisoning.  Henry  de  Harwedon,  the  chancellor  of 
Cambridge,  in  1334,  sent  to  prison  a  scholar  named 
William  de  Wyvelingham.  William  considered  himself 
ill  treated  and  brought  suit  in  the  royal  courts  against 
Henry  and  received  £  100  damages.  The  chancellor  at 
once  appealed  from  this  judgment,  claiming  the  power 
to  imprison  the  scholars  and  their  servants  for  their 
crimes.  The  matter  was  finally  brought  before  the  par- 
liament of  I338.95  The  results  of  this  suit  were  felt  in 
both  universities.  Edward  III  granted  to  Oxford  in 
1336,  that  the  chancellor  should  not  be  imprisoned  or 
disturbed  because  of  any  false  imprisonment,  as  had 
lately  happened  i  nCambridge.96  The  Cambridge  chan- 
cellor received  a  like  immunity  in  1343,  also  on  account 
of  the  above  case.97  Whether  the  king  had  the  power 
to  grant  this  privilege  is  extremely  doubtful,  for  it  was 
not  the  royal  policy  to  cut  off  all  chances  of  redress,  but 

"Cooper,  I.,  127  (1383). 

"Ibid.,  I.,  88. 

"Cal.  c.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1333-37,  S59-56o;  cf.  Rot.  part.,  I.,  38ia 
(1320). 

"*  Cooper,  I.,  86,  91 ;  Cat.  c.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1333-37,  703-704.  ^04, 
726,  727,  733;  Rot.  part,  II.,  97a. 

-Wood,  I.,  433!  ibid.,  I.,  487  (1374). 

m  Cooper,  I.,  95. 


37 

the  phrase,  "in  so  far  as  in  the  power  of  the  king,"  which 
is  added,  may  be  the  saving  clause. 

Cases  might  possibly  arise,  however,  in  which  all 
these  various  safeguards  might  prove  unavailing.  It  is 
stated  that  certain  men,  having  perpetrated  misdeeds 
while  within  the  range  of  the  chancellor's  authority,  re- 
move themselves  from  the  town  and  suburbs  to  con- 
tinue their  evil  deeds  where  no  effective  remedy  can  be 
had.  In  order  that  such  a  scholar  or  other  person  might 
be  brought  to  terms,  a  grant  was  made  to  Oxford 
in  1341. 98  The  chancellor  was  given  the  right  to  certify 
the  names  of  such  malefactors  to  the  royal  chancery, 
which  would  then  see  that  justice  was  done.  It  is  ex- 
pressly added  that  the  privileges  of  the  university  are  to 
be  in  no  wise  prejudiced  by  the  exercise  of  this  privi- 
lege. 

The  chancellor,  as  might  be  supposed,  used  his  vari- 
ous powers  of  coercion  and  imprisonment  in  whatever 
way  suited  him  best.  Because  his  power  of  excommu- 
nication was  due  to  his  position  as  an  ecclesiastical  judge 
would  and  did  not  deter  him  from  using  it  in  temporal 
cases.  The  fact  that  his  judicial  authority  was  a  mix- 
ture of  lay  and  ecclesiastical  powers  would  lead  natur- 
ally to  a  confusion  of  the  two  in  practice.  Indeed,  the 
chancellor  used  his  greatest  clerical  weapon  against 
laymen  for  various  crimes  within  his  jurisdiction,"  as 
he  also  did  against  the  town  officials  for  not  preserv- 
ing the  peace,100  and,  moreover,  he  used  it  as  a  means 
of  compelling  the  townsmen  to  bend  to  his  will.101  The 
king  himself  seems  to  aid  this  confusion,  when,  in  1355, 
he  allowed  the  chancellor  of  Oxford  to  enforce  the 
cleansing  of  the  streets  by  ecclesiastical  censures.102 

98  Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1340-43,  309-310. 

98  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.  III.,  Smith,  op.  cit.,  126-127;    ibid.,  122. 

100  Wood,  I.,  202,  317-318. 

101  Cooper,  I.,  59;   O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  III.,  122,  137. 

102  Rot.  chart.,  29  Ed.  III.,  No.  3. 


CHAPTER   II. 

i 
THE  UNIVERSITIES  AND  THE  BOROUGHS. 

The  relation  of  the  universities  to  the  towns  within 
which  they  were  situated  helps  materially  to  show  the 
attention  paid  by  the  royal  government  to  the  details 
of  local  activity.  The  universities  gained  a  large  share 
in  many  of  the  affairs  of  the  boroughs  not  through 
grants  from  the  dignitaries  of  the  church,  for  this  was 
clearly  impossible,  nor  through  local  grants,  but  only 
through  the  favor  of  the  kings.  That  the  growth  of 
such  powers  extends  throughout  the  whole  of  the  thir- 
teenth and  fourteenth  centuries  makes  it  clear,  more- 
over, that  this  policy  was  peculiar  to  no  one  king  or 
time.  It  is  sometimes  hard  to  realize  that  at  this  early 
period,  before  the  era  of  paternalism,  the  royal  admin- 
istration entered  so  much  into  the  life  of  the  boroughs, 
especially  after  they  had  been  given  a  large  measure  of 
local  autonomy.  On  that  account  such  a  study  as  this 
may  help,  though  slightly,  owing  to  the  peculiar  condi- 
tions involved,  to  throw  some  light  upon  the  royal  inter- 
ference elsewhere.  In  order  that  the  resistance  of  the 
boroughs  to  the  encroachments  of  the  universities  may 
be  more  fully  appreciated,  a  brief  outline  o  ftheir  thar- 
tered  rights  will  first  be  given,  before  proceeding  to  the 
actual  contact  of  the  two  corporations.  No  attempt  will 
be  made,  indeed,  to  cover  any  but  these  chartered  privi- 
leges, the  growth  of  local  customs  lying  too  far  afield. 

At  the  opening  of  the  thirteenth  century  Oxford  and 
Cambridge  were  fairly  important  boroughs  with  the 
beginnings  of  chartered  rights.  The  Oxford  burgesses 
had  already  gained  the  right  to  have  their  borough  at 
fee-farm.1  During  the  reign  of  Henrv  II  the  acquired 
the  right  to  their  gild  merchant,  the  customary  free- 

1  Ogle,  Royal  letters,  5  (temp.  Henry  I.). 


39 

dom  from  tolls  and  the  right  to  be  impleaded  within  the 
borough  for  any  claim  made  upon  them  individually,  in 
such  suits  following  the  laws  and  customs  of  London.2 
Cambridge  had,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  II,  received  its 
borough  at  farm,  but  not  at  fee-farm.3  The  latter  right 
it  did  not  gain  until  the  reign  of  John.4 

After  the  beginning  of  the  century  Cambridge  quickly 
gained  similar  privileges  to  those  which  Oxford  already 
enjoyed.  John  bestowed  upon  it  a  charter  in  1201,  in 
which  he  gave  it  the  right  to  have  a  gild  merchant,  ac- 
quitted the  burgesses  of  the  usual  long  list  of  tolls 
and  granted  "that  right  should  be  done  to  them 
touching  their  lands  and  tenures  within  the  borough  ac- 
cording to  the  custom  of  the  borough,  and  of  all  their 
debts  which  shall  have  been* contracted  at  Cambridge 
and  of  the  pledges  made  there,  pleas  shall  be  held  at 
Cambridge."5  At  this  time  it  also  appears  that  the 
mayor  and  bailiffs  held  court  five  times  a  year  concern- 
ing suits  of  land  and  once  a  week  for  personal  actions.6 

Both  the  boroughs  received  several  accessions  of  priv- 
ileges, almost  at  the  same  time,  about  the  middle  of  this 
century.  Cambridge  in  1256*  and  Oxford  in  1257* 
gained  from  Henry  III  the  right  to  the  much  sought 
for  return  of  writs  exempting  them  from  the  interfer- 
ence of  the  sheriff  in  their  local  affairs.  The  former 
was  also  given  the  cognizance  of  the  action  now  called 
replevin,  and  in  addition  was  allowed  to  elect  its  own 
coroner  "for  making  the  attachments  of  pleas  of  our 
crown  arising  within  the  town  of  Cambridge."9  It  is  a 
puzzling  fact  that,  although  no  royal  grant  of  such  a 
privilege  to  Oxford  can  be  found,  during  the  later  thir- 

2  Ogle,  op.  cit.,  2  sq. ;    Boase,  Oxford,  33-34. 

*  Maitland  and  Bateson,  Cambr.  borough  charters,  introd.  XIII 
and  3. 

4  Ibid.,  7   (1207). 
§  Ibid.,  5. 

*  Ibid.,  introd.,  XVI. 
7  Ibid.,  op.  cit.,  15. 

*  Ogle,  op.  cit.,  8. 

*  Maitland  and  Bateson,  op.  cit.,  16. 


40 

teenth  and  early  fourteenth  centuries  there  are  coroners 
in  that  borough  whose  titles  and  actions  stamp  them  as 
almost  surely  borough  coroners.10  And  indeed  the  right  of 
electing  a  borough  coroner  was  not  infrequently  grant- 
ed to  the  boroughs,  as  the  practice  of  other  places  easily 
shows.11  When  this  fact  is  taken  into  consideration  and 
when  the  large  amount  of  judicial  privileges  enjoyed  by 
the  borough  of  Oxford  is  noticed,  these  lend  an  air  of 
extreme  probability  to  the  assertion  that  the  coroners 
w  efind  in  Oxford  at  the  time  were  borough  coroners. 
In  the  charter  above  mentioned  Oxford  also  received 
the  right  of  not  being  impleaded  without  the  borough 
for  any  pleas  concerning  the  town  or  for  any  crime  com- 
mitted within  the  town,  unless  these  touched  the  king. 
It  was  further  granted  that,  during  the  absence  of  the 
king,  their  mayor  might  present  himself  for  confirma- 
tion to  the  barons  of  the  exchequer,  as  did  the  mayor 
of  London.12  There  are  numerous  examples  recorded 
of  the  mayor  having  taken  this  oath  in  London  during 
the  period  under  discussion.13 

An  additional  privilege  was  given  to  Oxford  in  a 
supplementary  charter  dated  March  26,  i2$j,™  which 
had  already  been  bestowed  upon  Cambridge  in  I256.15 
The  burgesses  or  their  goods,  wherever  found  in  the 
kingdom,  should  not  hereafter  be  seized  for  debts  for 
which  they  were  not  the  sureties  or  principal  debtors. 

10  Gross,   Coroners'   rolls,  introd.     XX.     Dr.   Gross,   reasoning 
from  their  titles,  thinks  that  they  are  borough  coroners ;    see  also 
Rogers,    Oxford    City    Documents,    147    sq.     Their   activities    as 
shown  in  the  coroners'  rolls  tend  to  confirm  this  idea,  cf.  Coro- 
ners' rolls  (MSS.  P.  R.  O.)  numbers  128,  129,  135,  all  for  "villa 
Oxon." 

11  Gross,  loc.  cit. ;    Records  of  the  borough  of  Nottingham,  I., 
24.   (i23o);J.   S.  Davies,  History  of  Southampton,  153   (1256); 
Seyer,  Charters  of  Bristol,  21   (1256)  ;    Rot.  cart.   (R.  C.)  65  (l 
John)    for  Ipswich,  etc. 

12  For  the  oath  of  the  mayor  see  Riley,  Liber  albus   (R.  S.)> 
L,  308. 

"Madox,  History  of  the  exchequer,  50-51   (21  Ed.  I);    Ogle 
op.  cit.,  27,  69,  72,  74,  92,  93,  95,  103 
14  Ogle,  op.  cit.,  10  sq. 
"Maitland  and  Bateson,  op.  cit.,  15. 


41 

The  relief  here  afforded  was  from  the  practice  of  the 
boroughs  of  the  time,  they  arresting  a  townsman  for  the 
debts  of  his  fellow  townsmen.  The  system  was  finally 
abolished  by  the  first  statute  of  Westminster  (ch.  23). 
In  the  same  Oxford  charter  it  was  granted  that  the  bur- 
gesses should  not  forfeit  their  goods  found  in  the  pos- 
session of  servants  who  had  committed  felonies. 

The  succeeding  kings  continued  this  policy  of  increas- 
ing the  local  authority  of  the  boroughs.  Edward  I  con- 
firmed the  charters  of  both  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  but 
gave  to  them  no  new  privileges.16  The  latter,  however, 
during  the  reign  of  Edward  II,17  and  the  former  during 
the  reign  of  Edward  III,18  received  charters  more  clear- 
ly defining  their  judicial  authority.  Quoting  from  the 
Cambridge  charter;  "concerning  trespasses  or  contracts 
made  in  the  same  borough  and  suburb,  they  may  not  sue 
or  be  sued  outside  that  borough  unless  the  matter  con- 
cerns us,  or  our  heirs,  and  that  touching  those  trespasses 
and  contracts  or  other  internal  affairs,  they  shall  not  be 
convicted  by  strangers  but  only  by  their  own  fellow 
citizens,  unless  the  matter  concerns  us,  or  our  heirs,  or 
the  commonality  of  the  aforesaid  borough."19  The  bur- 
gesses of  Cambridge  were  also  freed  from  various  tolls 
throughout  the  kingdom,  such  as  pavage  and  murage, 
as  were  also  the  burgesses  of  Oxford  in  their  charter. 
The  former  were  also  given  the  right  to  bequeath  their 
lands  and  tenements  within  their  borough  to  whom  they 
wished,  as  if  the  same  were  chattels,  provided  that  such 
lands  were  not  alienated  in  mortmain.  A  saving  clause 
was  added  to  both  charters  that  these  privileges  were 
not  to  be  to  the  injury  of  the  university. 

The  great  riots  of  1355  in  Oxford  and  of  1381  in  Cam- 
bridge caused  those  boroughs  to  lose  numerous  and 
valued  privileges,  which  were  handed  over  to  the  uni- 

16  Ogle,  op.  cit,  16  (1301);    Maitland  and  Bateson,  op.  cit.,  18- 
20  (1289). 

17  Maitland  and  Bateson,  op.  cit.,  21  sq.   (1313). 
"Ogle,  op.  cit.,  35  sq.  (1327). 

18  Translation  in  Maitland,  etc.,  22. 


42 

versities.  The  principal  loss  in  both  cases  was  of  cer- 
tain controlling  rights  over  the  assizes  and  other  func- 
tions of  their  markets.  On  account  of  this  deprivation 
the  boroughs  suffered  a  severe  diminution  of  their 
revenues,  for  the  fines  and  forfeits  arising  from  the  above 
control  were  now  paid  to  the  university  officials  who  had 
taken  charge.  Their  fee-farms  thus  became  a  heavier 
burden,  since  they  were  supposed  to  include  such  pay- 
ments, and,  in  consequence,  Cambridge  received  a  new 
charter  giving  to  the  burgesses  other  sources  of  re- 
venue.20 The  fines,  amerciaments,  forfeited  issues  and 
other  profits  arising  from  the  penalties  imposed  by  the 
royal  justices  while  in  session  in  Cambridge  were  to  be 
given  to  the  town;  those  fines,  however,  arising  from 
cases  in  which  a  scholar's  servant  was  a  party  being  ex- 
cepted.  Some  disputes  breaking  out  between  the  town 
and  university  over  the  latter  clause,  it  was  further  de- 
fined in  I394.21 

Such  were,  in  general,  the  privileges  given  to  the  bor- 
oughs by  the  royal  charters.  As  may  be  seen,  they 
were  cut  off  to  a  large  extent  from  the  interference  of 
the  royal  administrative  and  judicial  officials  and  hav- 
ing this  local  independence  they  were  hostile  to  the  in- 
creasing powers  of  the  universities,  which  threatened 
to  limit  their  own  rights.  That  such  a  limitation  did 
come  about  will  be  shown  in  this  chapter,  in  which  will 
be  treated  first  of  all  those  forms  of  the  borough  ma- 
chinery of  government  upon  which  the  presence  of  the 
universities  had  a  marked  effect. 

One  of  the  great  problems  in  the  university  towns 
was  the  preservation  of  the  peace,  the  riotous  tendencies 
of  the  students  and  the  hostility  of  the  townsmen  call- 
ing for  special  regulations  for  them.  Henry  III,  during 
his  reign,  was  making  great  efforts  through  his  insti- 
tution of  watch  and  ward  to  bring  about  tranquility  in 
the  kingdom,  by  a  system  of  night  watching  in  the 

20Maitland  and  Bateson,  op.  cit,  36-37  (1385). 
21  Ibid.,  39  sq. ;    Cooper,  I.,  141. 


43 

towns  and  by  a  scheme  of  mutual  responsibility  among 
the  townsmen.22  These  regulations  would  of  course 
apply  to  Oxford  and  Cambridge  as  they  did  to  the  other 
English  towns.  In  1248,  while  this  system  was  as  yet 
not  fully  developed,  there  are  the  beginnings  of  special 
royal  regulations  applying  to  Oxford,  which  are  similar, 
it  is  true,  to  those  already  promulgated  for  the  whole 
kingdom,  but  are  also  suited  to  the  needs  of  the  local 
conditions.23  If  a  burgess  killed  or  gravely  injured  a 
clerk  the  whole  community  was  to  be  amerced  and 
punished ;  but  if  these  misdeeds  were  due  to  the  negli- 
gence of  the  bailiffs  they  alone  were  to  be  punished. 
Whenever  the  mayor  and  bailiffs  took  their  oath  of 
fidelity  in  the  common  place  of  the  borough,  the  chan- 
cellor of  the  university  was  to  be  warned  in  advance  so 
that  he  might  be  present  if  he  so  desired,  for  in  their 
oaths  these  officials  were  to  swear  to  preserve  the  uni- 
versity liberties  and  customs.  It  was  further  provided 
that  each  burgess  of  Oxford  should  answer  for  his  whole 
family,  in  order  that,  if  a  scholar  was  injured  or  killed  by 
one  of  them,  the  burgesses  might  produce  the  malefactors 
that  justice  might  be  done  according  to  the  custom  of 
the  realm. 

This,  though  important  as  showing  the  king's  inter- 
est in  the  scholars,  was  but  the  beginning  of  the  royal 
provisions.  A  little  later,  in  1255,  some  actual  changes 
were  made  in  the  form  of  the  borough  government 
to  insure  the  peace  and  tranquility  of  the  university.2* 
In  his  previous  letter  patent  of  the  year  1248  Henry 
had  spoken  of  two  aldermen  in  the  borough ;  he  now 
provided  that  there  should  be  four  aldermen,  with  whom 
eight  discreet  burgesses  were  to  be  associated,  all  of 
whom  should  swear  fidelity  to  the  king  and  should  as- 
sist the  mayor  and  bailiffs  in  the  preservation  of  the 

"Stubbs,  Select  charters  (Ed.  1895),  362,  371,  374.  The  insti- 
tution was  made  permanent  by  the  statute  of  Winchester,  1285. 
Stubbs,  op.  cit.,  470. 

**  Rogers,  op.  cit.,  212. 

"Ibid.,  213-215;    Stubbs,  op.  cit.,  377-378. 


44 

king's  peace,  in  the  taking  of  the  assizes  and  in  the 
capturing  of  malefactors,  disturbers  of  the  peace,  noc- 
turnal vagabonds  and  receivers  of  robbers  and  trans- 
gressors. An  additional  safeguard  was  made  in  the 
provision  that  in  each  parish  two  men  should  be  chosen, 
from  among  the  parishioners,  who  should  inquire  as  to 
the  suspicious  persons  lodging  in  the  parish.  They 
were  also  to  keep  watch  to  see  whether  anyone  received 
such  persons  for  three  nights  in  their  houses,  in  which 
case  the  latter  persons  might  be  made  to  answer  for 
them  if  necessary.  This  is  the  final  form  of  the  town 
organization  for  this  purpose  during  our  period,  al- 
though there  is  an  agreement  made  in  1290  between  the 
town  and  the  university  that  they  should  have  the  joint 
custody  of  the  peace  in  Oxford.25 

The  Cambridge  regulations  of  the  year  1268  are  much 
the  same  as  those  for  Oxford  of  1255.  On  the  twenty- 
second  of  February,  1268,  Henry  III  made  the  follow- 
ing changes  in  the  borough  organization  for  the  sake  of 
the  peace  of  the  university.26  There  should  be  two 
aldermen  in  Cambridge,  who  should  have  associated 
with  them  four  of  the  more  discreet  burgesses  of  the 
town.  Their  duties  were  of  exactly  the  same  descrip- 
tion as  those  of  the  similar  officials  in  Oxford.  The 
same  provisions  were  also  made  for  the  two  men  in  each 
parish  whose  duty  it  was  to  seek  out  suspected  persons. 
There  was,  however,  a  later  arrangement  in  Cambridge, 
which  followed  shortly  after  this  one,  to  prevent  the 
frequent  clashings  between  the  town  and  the  university. 
Prince  Edward  in  1270  caused  an  agreement  to  be  en- 
tered into  by  the  two  organizations  for  the  better  keep- 
ing of  the  peace  between  them.27Five  scholars  were  to 
be  chosen  from  those  coming  from  the  counties  of  Eng- 
land, three  from  the  Scotchmen,  two  Welshmen  and 

25  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  46-56. 

26  Cooper,  L,  50-51 ;    confirmed  20  Ed.  I.,  2  Ed.  II.,  i  Ed.  III. 
"Fuller,  op.  cit.,  I.,  45-46;    confirmed  20  Ed.  I.,  2  Ed.  II.,  I 

Ed.  III. 


45 

three  Irishmen,  to  whom  should  be  joined  ten  bur- 
gesses, three  from  the  suburbs  and  seven  from  the  town 
itself.  This  body  was  to  attend  to  the  preservation  of 
the  peace  and  was  especially  intended,  as  its  composition 
indicates,  to  prevent  internal  strife. 

The  settlements  reached  during  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury, as  above  noticed,  remained  through  the  fourteenth 
for  the  most  part  unchanged.  Oxford,  however,  being 
a  walled  town,  the  watching  of  its  gates  during  the  night 
was  a  matter  of  much  importance  and  here  too  the  uni- 
versity steps  in  to  interfere  with  the  town  functions. 
During  the  early  part  of  the  fourteenth  century  it  gain- 
ed control  of  one  of  these  gates,  the  Southgate,  prepar- 
ing the  way  for  its  future  management  of  the  night 
police.28  It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  add  here,  that 
when  the  justices  of  the  peace  began  to  be  appointed 
regularly  after  1360  with  their  extensive  powers,  the 
chancellors  of  both  Oxford  and  Cambridge  were  reg- 
ularly placed  upon  the  commissions  for  those  towns.2* 
A  saving  clause  was  always  added  that  these  justices 
were  not  to  interfere  with  the  university  liberties. 

Beyond  the  changes  shown  above  there  seem  to  have 
been  no  new  officials  created  in  the  towns  because  of 
the  presence  of  the  universities  except  the  taxors,  whose 
functions  will  be  described  in  a  later  section.  Yet  the 
effects  along  other  lines  were  numerous  and  significant. 
The  duties  and  activities  of  the  town  officials  were  modi- 
fied and  limited  on  every  side  by  the  interference  of  the 
central  government  on  behalf  of  the  student  bodies. 
Some  indications  of  this  can  be  seen  in  the  case  of  the 
peace  regulations.  This  idea  was  carried  so  far  that  it  is 
somewhat  doubtful  whether  a  thirteenth  century  bur- 
gess of  Oxford  would  have  recognized  the  government 
of  his  borough  at  the  end  of  the  following  century. 

28  Cal,  c.  r.,  Ed.  II.,  1323-27,  616-17  (Oct.,  1326)  ;  cf.  O.  H.  S. 
Coll.,  III.,  102. 

"Wood,  I,  479,  481,  487;  Stat.  coll.  Ox.,  III.,  31,  42,  etc.;. 
Docs,  rel.,  univ.  and  Cambr.,  I.,  33,  34,  36,  38,  39,  sq. 


46 

At  the  head  of  the  town  governments  was  the  mayor, 
who,  before  entering  upon  his  office,  had  to  take  an  oath 
to  the  commonality  of  the  town  and  had  also  to  make 
some  expression  of  his  fidelity  to  the  crown.  The  oath 
of  the  mayor  of  Oxford  has  already  been  spoken  of,  as 
has  the  fact  that  when  he  took  his  oath  to  the  town  the 
chancellor  might  be  present  if  he  wished.  A  similar 
state  of  affairs  existed  in  Cambridge,  it  being  granted 
that,  when  the  mayor  and  bailiffs  were  to  take  their 
oaths  in  the  common  hall,  the  chancellor  should  be  fore- 
warned so  that  he  might  attend.30  The  mayor  was  to 
swear  to  respect  the  liberties  and  customs  of  the  uni- 
versity and  that  he  would  faithfully  observe  the  assizes 
of  bread,  wine  and  ale.  In  consequence  of  their  neglect 
of  this  duty,  as  shown  in  the  university  petitions  to 
parliament,31  the  grant  was  made  in  1336,  that  the  chan- 
cellor or  his  locum  tenens  should  annually,  in  the  name 
of  the  king,  receive  the  oath  of  the  mayor  and  burgesses 
to  maintain  the  peace  of  the  university  and  town.82 

The  question  of  the  health  of  the  students  and  towns- 
men involving  as  it  did  the  care  of  the  streets  and  pave- 
ments and  some  sanitary  regulations,  caused  the  king 
to  interfere  many  times  with  the  town  control  of  these 
matters;  for  Oxford  and  Cambridge  like  many  other 
mediaeval  towns  were  far  from  being  clean  in  any  mod- 
ern sense. 

From  an  early  date  the  repair  and  cleansing  of  the 
streets  and  pavements  occupies  an  important  place  in 
the  affairs  of  both  boroughs.  They  seem  to  have  been 
in  an  almost  constant  state  of  disrepair,  the  universities 
sending  complaint  after  complaint  to  parliament  of  their 
poor  condition.38  In  answer  to  these  petitions  and,  per- 
haps, because  of  a  paternal  interest  in  the  health  of  the 
students,  the  king  strove  to  remedy  the  evil  by  grants 

80 Cooper,  I.,  75-76  (1317). 

*Rot.  parl,  I.,  38ia  (1320)  ;   Cooper,  I,  88  (i33S)- 
K  Cooper,  I.,  88;   cf.  Ibid.,  I.,  101-102. 

"Ibid,  I.,  78,  85,  88,  101-2;  Rot.  parl.,  I.,  38ia;  Wood,  I.,  361; 
O.  H.  S.  Coll.,  III.,  104. 


47 

of  pavage,34  and  by  commands  that  the  town  officials 
should  cause  the  pavements  before  the  houses  of  the 
townsmen  and  students  to  be  kept  in  good  condition  by 
distraining  the  owners  for  repairs.35  The  Oxford  chan- 
cellor was  early  associated  with  the  mayor  and  bailiffs 
to  see  that  this  duty  was  performed,  and  also  to  compel 
the  obedience  of  the  masters  and  scholars.36  There  was 
the  same  difficulty  over  the  cleansing  of  the  streets,  the 
university  finding  in  their  uncleanliness  a  cause  of  much 
sickness  and  death  in  the  towns.  To  Oxford,  after  the 
riots  of  1355,  it  was  granted  that  its  chancellor  was 
to  have  the  sole  power  of  seeing  to  the  cleansing  of  the 
streets  of  the  town  and  suburbs  and  of  punishing  those 
who  refused  to  obey  his  commands.37  The  mayor  and 
bailiffs  seem  to  have  been  unsuccessful  in  their  attempts 
to  suppress  the  evil  and  this  was  the  result.  After  the 
statute  of  Cambridge,  1388,  chapter  XIII  of  which  was 
a  command  that  the  towns  of  the  kingdom  be  kept 
clean,38  the  chancellor  of  Cambridge  was  associated 
with  the  town  officials  to  attend  to  this  subject.39 

In  addition  to  the  general  question  of  cleanliness  in- 
volved in  the  care  of  the  streets,  complaints  were  made 
at  intervals  and  remedies  granted  concerning  special 
instances  of  unsanitary  conditions.  The  great  ditch  of 
the  town  was  not  scoured  thoroughly  by  the  mayor  and 
bailiffs,  and,  in  Oxford,  they  were  commanded  to  do  so  at 
once.40  The  Cambridge  chancellor  was  ordered  to  see  to 
the  cleaning  of  certain  noxious  gutters  within  the  pre- 
cincts of  the  university.41  Edward  I  issued  a  mandate 
that  the  bakers  and  brewers  of  Oxford  should  not  use 
the  polluted  waters  of  the  Trillmill  stream  because  such 

M  Cooper,  I.,  62,  So. 

KCal.  c.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1333-37,  554 ;  Cal  p.  r.,  Ed.  III., 
1330-1334,  208. 

"Cat.  p.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1330-34,  208;  Ibid.,  1334-38,  32;  Ibid., 
1338-40,  121,  334- 

*7  Ogle,  op.  cit.,  62  sq. ;  cf.  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  177  (1356),  where 
the  power  was  extended  to  the  hundred  without  the  north  gate. 

K  Stat.  of  the  realm,  II.,  59. 

"Cooper,  I.,  140  (1391). 

"Ibid.,  I.,  85;    Ogle,  op.  cit,  72  (1371)- 
•    "Ibid.,  I.,  141  d393). 


48 

a  practice  was  hurtful  to  the  health  of  the  scholars.4* 
The  university  of  Oxford  also  complained  that  the  pre- 
paring of  parchments  and  skins  within  the  walls  of  the 
town  caused  an  awful  stench  to  arise  and  therefore  it 
prayed  that  these  operations  might  be  henceforth  carried 
on  without  the  town.48  Although  this  extreme  request 
was  not  granted  by  the  king,  he  did  command  that  the 
evil  should  be  remedied.  Another  and  great  cause  of 
annoyance  in  Oxford  was  the  fact  that  the  butchers  and 
others  killed  their  cattle  within  the  town,  throwing  the 
offal  and  other  refuse  into  the  streets.  This  was  said 
to  have  caused  a  large  amount  of  sickness  and  death.44 
It  seems  from  the  answer  to  the  royal  writ  that  there 
was  a  public  place  set  aside  for  the  use  of  those  killing 
cattle,  in  which  they  could  also  sell  their  meats,  the  rent 
of  which  place,  one  hundred  shillings,  was  used  toward 
the  payment  of  the  fee-farm  of  the  town.45  Neverthe- 
less the  mayor  and  bailiffs  were  ordered  to  make  a 
proclamation  against  any  such  slaughtering  of  animals 
within  the  walls,  and  the  chancellor  of  the  university, 
the  mayor  of  the  town,  and  the  warden  of  Merton  col- 
lege were  appointed  to  act  as  overseers  of  the  matter  with 
the  power  to  punish  offenders.46  The  mayor  and  bailiffs 
objecting  to  this  and  the  sheriff  refusing  to  aid  in  the 
carrying  out  of  this  command,  Edward  issued  another 
writ  in  which  he  reconstructed  the  commission.47  The 
chancellor  and  warden  were  now  chosen  to  supervise 
the  evecution  of  the  order,  the  former  being  empowered 
to  act  alone  if  the  latter  refused  to  serve.  On  the  same 
day  the  sheriff  was  commanded  to  make  a  proclamation 
of  this  regulation  within  the  town  of  Oxford.48 
But  the  royal  care  of  the  universities  did  not  end  there. 

"Wood,  I.,  344-45  (1293)- 
.    -O.  H.  S.  Coll.,  III.,  104-105  (1305). 
"Ibid.,  135(1339). 

45  Wood,  I.,  439,  Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1338-40,  306. 
"Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1338-40,  186  (Jan.  20,  1339). 
"Ibid.,  306  (July  30,  1339)- 
48  Ibid. 


49 

Besides  the  employment  of  various  means  to  preserve  the 
health  of  the  students,  he  used  others  to  preserve  the  quiet 
necessary  for  study,  others  for  the  moral  welfare  of  the 
students,  and  yet  others  to  prevent  any  unjust  discrimina- 
tion against  them.  All  these  interfered,  to  a  greater  or 
less  extent,  with  the  free  control  of  the  boroughs  by  the 
burgesses  themselves. 

The  tournaments  of  the  mediaeval  period  were  often, 
as  is  well  known,  the  scenes  of  great  disorder.  "Many 
sad  casualties  were  caused  by  these  meetings,  though 
ordered  with  the  best  caution.  Arms  and  legs  were 
as  often  broken  as  spears.  Much  lewd  people  waited  on 
these  assemblies,  light  housewives  as  well  as  light  horse- 
men repaired  thereto.  Yea,  such  was  the  clashing  of 
swords,  the  rattling  of  arms,  the  sounding  of  trumpets, 
the  neighing  of  horses,  the  shouting  of  men  all  day- 
time, with  the  roaring  of  riotous  revellers  all  the  night, 
that  the  scholars'  studies  were  disturbed,  safety  en- 
dangered, lodging  straightened,  charges  enlarged,  all 
provisions  being  unconscionably  enhanced.49  These 
conditions  were  those  that  led  Henry  III,  in  1252,  to 
prohibit  all  tournaments  in  Cambridge  or  about  it  with- 
out his  license,  under  pain  of  forfeiture  of  all  the  goods 
of  the  offender.50  In  1270  he  sent  another  writ  which 
became  the  basis  of  the  future  strict  royal  policy.51 
The  king,  at  the  request  of  the  university,  then  com- 
manded that  no  tournaments,  tiltings  or  other  warlike 
games  should  be  held  in  Cambridge  or  within  five  miles 
of  that  place,  if  the  masters  and  scholars  requested  that 
they  should  not  be  allowed.  Such  warlike  meetings 
were  also  forbidden  to  be  held  in  or  about  Oxford,  the 
regulation  of  1306  making  this  order  good  within  twelve 
miles  of  the  town.52  The  action  against  tournaments  is, 
however,  but  another  instance  of  the  localization  of  what 

"  Mullinger,  op.  cit.,  I.,  138,  quoting  Fuller. 
"  B.  M.  MSS.,  Faustina,  C.  III.,  fol.  i42a  (36  Henry  III.). 
"Cooper,  I.,  53;    confirmed  1292,  1309,  1327. 
"Wood,  I.,  369;   Hardy,  Syllabus,  138. 

4 


50 

was  a  general  policy  of  the  crown,  as  may  be  seen  in 
the  various  writs  prohibiting  such  meetings.68 

An  indirect  cause  of  many  of  the  smaller  disturbances 
in  the  university  towns,(  as  also  of  the  greater  riots,  was 
undoubtedly  the  practice  of  both  the  scholars  and  towns- 
men of  carrying  aims.  That  the  authorities  of  the  uni- 
versity of  Oxford  saw  this  the  words  of  the  statute  of 
1313  bear  ample  witness.54  During  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury that  university  prohibited  the  carrying  of  weapons 
by  the  students,08  and  had  later  been  promised  assistance 
by  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  to  enforce  this  com- 
mand.58 A  compromise  position  was  reached  in  1313, 
the  students  having  offered  in  their  own  behalf  the  plea 
of  self  defence.57  By  this  compromise  the  carrying  of 
arms  was  restricted  to  such  times  as  when  the  students 
were  entering  or  leaving  the  town  after  or  upon  enter- 
ing upon  a  long  journey.  With  this  statute  as  its  back- 
ing, the  university  appealed  to  parliament  that  the  towns- 
men of  Oxford  be  also  forbidden  to  carry  arms,  for  it 
said,  they  kill  and  wound  many  unarmed  and  unoffen- 
sive  scholars.58  Edward  II  gave  his  answer  to  this  pe- 
tition in  a  command  that  none  but  the  town  officials 
should  be  allowed  to  bear  arms  within  the  town.  The 
next  king,  Edward  III,  passed  a  still  more  stringent 
enactment,  forbidding  the  bringing  in  arms  by  the 
students  under  any  pretext  and  commanding  that  they 
should  not  even  keep  armor  or  weapons  in  their  lodg- 
ings.59 All  persons  were,  further,  forbidden  to  sell  them 
such  articles  under  pain  of  imprisonment.  He  also  for- 
bade the  carrying  of  weapons  by  all  men  except  those 
officials  of  the  town  and  of  the  royal  administration 

53  Palgrave,  Parliamentary  writs,  II.,  II.,  app.  19,  No.  18,  sq. ; 
Ibid,  II.,  II.,  app.  35,  No.  26. 

"  Mun.  acad.,  L.  91. 

MIbid.,  L,  16  (1250?). 

59  Ibid.,  I.,  40  (1279). 

"Ibid.,  I.,  91. 

"Rot.  parl,  i.,  373b;  O.  H.  S.  Coll.,  III.,  119  (1320). 

"Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1334-38,  67  (i334>  J  ibid.,  83;  O.  H.  S., 
Coll.,  I.,  14  (1335)- 


whose  duties  demanded  their  use.60  When  the  privi- 
leges of  the  town  of  Oxford  were  restored  in  1335,  after 
St.  Scholastica's  day,  the  cognizance  of  all  unlawful 
bearers  of  arms,  both  lay  and  clerical,  was  reserved  for 
the  chancellor  of  the  university.61  The  statutes  of  Cam- 
bridge have  been  lost  for  this  early  period  and  there 
seem  to  have  been  no  royal  writs  upon  this  subject  di- 
rected'to  that  place;  yet  even  there,  in  1351,  the  univer- 
sity petitioned  parliament  for  the  power  to  seize  all 
weapons  that  were  being  carried  and  to  bind  over  of- 
fenders for  their  good  behavior.62 

It  must  not  be  deduced  from  these  strict  orders  that 
the  scholars  and  laymen  did  not  carry  arms  or  at  least 
keep  them  within  reach.  During  the  riot  on  and  after 
St.  Scholastica's  day,  which  followed  the  period  of  the 
statutes,  the  students,  as  well  as  the  townsmen,  were 
fully  equipped  for  the  fray.63  The  coroners'  rolls  for 
Oxford  also  bear  witness  to  the  seemingly  general  pos- 
session of  arms  by  the  students  in  open  violation  of  the 
university  commands.6*  It  is  interesting  to  note  the 
variety  of  weapons  in  use,  mention  being  made  of  bows, 
arrows,  swords,  knives,  hatchets,  shields  and  even  of  that 
curious  weapon  called  a  pole-axe.  The  weapons  used 
were  therefore  not  primitive  stones  or  clubs,  but  almost 
the  whole  range  of  effective  mediaeval  offensive  weap- 
ons. 

The  care  of  the  morals  of  the  students  was  left  to  the 
chancellor  of  the  university;  yet  to  remove  temptation 
from  their  path  it  was  ordered  that  in  Cambridge  a  pro- 
clamation should  be  made  four  times  a  year  to  the  ef- 
fect that  no  harlot  should  remain  within  the  town  or  its 
suburbs.85  If  such  women  did  not  depart  within  fifteen 
days  after  the  making  of  the  proclamation,  they  were  to 

"Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1334-38,  83  (1334). 
"Ogle,  op.  cit.,  62  sq.   (i355>- 
"  Cooper,  I.,  102. 

°*  Lyte,  Hist.  univ.  Oxford,  162  sq. 
"Rogers,  op.  cit.,  150,  155,  163,  165,  168,  173- 
"Co/,  p.  r.,  Ed.  II.,  1313-17,  665  (1327)  ;  Ibid.,  Ed.  III.,  1327-30, 
60,  183  (1327)- 


52 

be  imprisoned  at  the  will  of  the  chancellor.  They  were 
also  banished  from  Oxford  in  1234,  but  the  king  allowed 
those  arrested  to  be  released  soon  afterward  and  made 
no  systematic  regulations  for  their  control.66  By  the  be- 
ginning of  the  fourteenth  century,  however,  the  chan- 
cellor of  Oxford,  seems  to  have  gained  the  power  to 
imprison  and  punish  all  such  corruptors  of  the  morals 
of  the  students.67 

Yet  another  instance  of  the  royal  interference  with 
the  town  affairs  for  the  benefit  of  the  students  still  re- 
mains to  be  treated  before  proceeding  to  the  great  ex- 
ample of  such  action,  the  organization  of  the  markets. 
In  order  to  prevent  the  unjust  treatment  of  the  scholars 
with  respect  to  the  rent  of  their  rooms  and  houses,  the 
crown  approved  the  method,  which  was  in  use  in  all  of 
the  mediaeval  universities,63  of  having  the  rent  of  these 
halls  rated  by  a  joint  board  of  townsmen  and  masters. 
The  first  recorded  mention  of  a  distinction  between  lay 
and  scholars'  houses  is  found  in  1244,  when  the  papal 
legate,  Nicolas,  bishop  of  Tusculum,  provided  that  the 
townsmen  should  remit  one-half  of  the  rent  of  the  halls 
occupied  by  scholars  for  the  ensuing  ten  years,  as  a 
penalty  for  their  misdeeds.69  Henry  III  followed  this, 
in  1231,  with  a  command  to  the  townsmen  not  to  over- 
rate their  houses  so  as  to  cause  scholars  to  remain  away 
from  Oxford.70  Later,  in  1256,  the  same  king  by  his 
confirmation  extended  the  practice  noted,  granting  that 
such  houses  should  be  rated  every  five  years  by  a 
joint  board  of  taxors  chosen  by  the  town  and  univer- 
sity.71 This  board  was  said  in  1290  to  be  composed  of 
two  clerics  and  two  laymen.72  A  custom  grew  out  of 

"Wood,  I.,  217;   Lyte,  op.  cit.,  29;  cf.  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  17. 
67  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  III.,  101-102  (1305). 

88  Rashdall,  op.  cit.,  II.,  II.,  399-400. 

89  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  i. 

'"Wood,  I.,  205-206;  cf.  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  13,  (1250?),  which 
provides  a  penalty  for  overrating. 

"Wood,  I.,  253;  Annales  monast.,  (Osney),  IV.,  in,  sub  anuo 
1256;  cf.  Wood,  I.,  275  (1269). 

"Mun.  acad.,  I.,  55-56. 


53 

these  regulations  that  when  once  a  house  was  let  to 
scholars  it  should  always  be  reserved  for  them,  unless 
the  owner  wished  to  occupy  it,  Edward  III  sanction- 
ing this  practice  in  I3O3.73  The  royal  confirmation  of 
this  universtity  usage  was  granted  to  Cambridge  in  1231 
because  of  the  extortions  of  the  townsmen.74  The 
board  was  to  be  composed  of  two  masters  and  two  legal 
men  of  the  town,  who  were  to  decide  the  rents  of  the 
scholars'  houses  every  five  years.  The  grant  states  that 
this  was  already  according  to  the  custom  of  the  univer- 
sity. Cambridge  also  developed  some  customs  looking 
toward  a  more  complete  control  over  these  houses. 
After  the  rating  had  been  made,  if  a  scholar  went  to  a 
householder  and  offered  to  pay  the  rent  or  to  give 
security  for  its  payment,  the  said  householder  was 
obliged  to  permit  him  to  have  the  house  or  room,  and  if 
he  did  not  do  so  the  chancellor  could  admit  the  scholar 
notwithstanding  his  resistance.75  When,  in  1292,  the 
prior  of  Bernewell  refused  to  rent  one  of  his  houses  on 
these  terms,  the  chancellor  put  the  scholars  in  posses- 
sion of  it,  thus  proving  the  effectiveness  of  this  power.78 

The  last  and  greatest  example  of  the  royal  interference 
with  the  borough  management  of  its  own  affairs  has 
now  been  reached.  In  the  following  account  of  the 
gradual  acquisition  by  the  universities  of  the  control  of 
the  various  assizes  pertaining  to  the  markets  of  Oxford 
and  Cambridge,  no  attempt  will  be  made  to  construct 
a  complete  history  of  the  markets  as  borough  organiza- 
tions. From  the  point  of  view  of  this  study  it  will  only 
be  necessary  to  notice  the  cases  where  the  universities 
and  the  boroughs  came  in  contact,  and  especially  those 
requiring  royal  interposition.  For  the  sake  of  clear- 
ness the  two  towns  will  be  considered  separately,  the 
wide  divergence  which  exists  in  the  times  when  the  uni- 

73  Wood,  I.,  367 ;    Rashdall,  op.  cit,  II.,  II.,  400. 
"Royal  letters  Henry   III.,   Shirley   I.,  398-99;    confirmed  20 
Ed.  L,  2  Ed.  II.,  i  Ed.  III. 

75  Mullinger,  op.  cit.,  I.,  218-221. 

76  Cooper,  I.,  65. 


54 

versities  acquire  the  same  privileges  making  any  other 
method  out  of  the  question. 

The  preliminary  stage  of  the  development  which 
gradually  leads  up  to  the  great  powers  of  the  university 
of  Oxford  over  various  affairs  connected  with  the 
market,  was  not  one  in  which  the  latter  was  even  an  as- 
sisting factor.  The  townsmen,  it  seems,  took  advan- 
tage of  the  position  of  the  students  and  overcharged 
them  for  their  victuals.  This  being  a  violation  of  the 
mercantile  spirit  of  the  times,  as  shown  in  the  royal  reg- 
ulations of  prices,  writs  were  sent  to  Oxford  com- 
manding the  townsmen  to  observe  the  assizes  and  to 
charge  only  reasonable  prices  for  their  produce.  Among 
the  first  restrictions  upon  the  townsmen  having  the 
students  in  view,  is  the  provision  of  the  bishop  of  Tus- 
culum,  the  papal  legate  before  mentioned,  in  1214,  that 
the  Oxford  men  should  sell  their  victuals  to  the  clerks 
at  a  reasonable  price.77  The  king  was,  however,  as  was 
natural,  the  prime  mover  in  this  regulation  from  with- 
out. There  were  a  number  of  royal  commands  sent  to 
Oxford  that  the  assizes  should  be  observed,78  that  wine 
should  be  sold  at  a  reasonable  rate,79  and  some  others  of 
a  like  nature.  These  mandates  were  in  the  nature  of  an 
attempt  to  assure  a  fair  treatment  of  the  university  with- 
out giving  it  any  real  power  and  are  continued  even 
when  this  body  had  acquired  a  fair  amount  of  super- 
vision over  the  market.  Until,  however,  the  latter  gain- 
ed a  large  amount  of  authority  these  were  the  only 
available  means  of  preventing  extortions.  The  failure 
of  this  system  led  in  time  to  one  of  joint  control  and, 
when  the  abuses  still  continued,  to  the  full  powers  of  the 
university. 

The  assizes  continuing  to  be  badly  administered  by  the 
officials  of  Oxford,  the  chancellor  was  given  the  right, 

77Mun.  acad.,  I.,  2;  O.  H.  S-,  Coll.,  II.,  46,  Ogle,  The  Oxford 
market. 

"Shirley,  op.  cit,  1.482-483;  Wood,  I.,  301,  403;  Boase,  Ox- 
ford, 43. 

79  Ibid.,  I.,  483. 


55 

in  1248,  to  be  notified  by  the  townsmen  in  order  that  he 
might  be  present  at  the  taking  of  the  assizes  of  bread 
and  ale  to  insure  their  better  observance.80  That  this 
should  be  more  effective  it  was  also  provided  that  these 
assizes  were  to  be  of  no  avail  if  he  had  not  been  given 
this  notification ;  but  if  he  did  not  appear  either  in  person 
or  through  deputies,  after  being  warned,  the  trial  was 
to  proceed.  Again,  in  1255,  among  the  several  regula- 
tions passed  by  the  king  for  the  control  of  the  bakers, 
the  sale  of  wine  and  the  supervision  of  the  assizes, 
it  was  stated  that  the  assize  of  bread  and  ale  should  be 
of  no  account  unless  the  chancellor,  or  his  deputies, 
were  present,  or  had  been  summoned.81  Thus  far,  there- 
fore, the  chancellor  had  only  the  right  of  being  present 
as  an  onlooker,  though  his  presence  might  have  a  salu- 
tary effect  upon  the  actions  of  the  town  officials.  This 
was  corrected  in  1268  when  it  was  provided  that,  if 
the  chancellor  and  proctors  were  not  present  in  person 
or  through  deputies,  the  assize  should  not  proceed.82 

The  university  had  been  given,  through  these  grants, 
a  fair  chance  to  interfere  to  some  extent,  by  means  of 
its  officials,  in  the  supervision  of  the  Oxford  market. 
The  chancellor  did  not  allow  this  chance  of  increasing 
his  powers  slip  by  without  some  result.  A  dispute 
arose,  about  1280,  over  the  disposal  of  the  forfeits  from 
the  assizes,  Edward  I  settling  the  matter  later  with  the 
command  that  they  be  given  to  the  hospital  of  St.  John 
without  the  east  gate  of  Oxford.83  Some  other  points 
which  were  contested  reached  the  parliament  of  1290 
and  were  there  settled.8*  The  town  complained  that  the 
chancellor  appropriated  to  himself  the  forfeited  victuals 
and  fines  from  regrators  and  forestallers  to  the  injury 
of  its  fee-farm.  The  royal  answer  to  this  complaint 
made  no  mention  of  the  fines,  but  stated  that  over  re- 

80  Rogers,  op.  cit.,  213 ;   Lyte,  op.  cit.,  44. 

81  Ibid.,  213-215;   O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  II.,  47. 
**Mun.  acad.,  II.,  779;   O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  47. 

"Rogers,  op.  cit.,  215-216  (1284)  ;   O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  II.,  47. 
•    MMun.  acad.,  I.,  46-56;  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  II.,  48. 


56 

grators  and  forestallers  the  mayor  and  chancellor  were 
to  have  jurisdiction  within  the  town  and  the  sheriff  with- 
out its  limits.  All  forfeited  goods  were  to  be  given  to 
the  Hospital  of  St.  John  above  mentioned  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  chancellor  and  mayor  within  and  the  chan- 
cellor and  sheriff  without  Oxford.85  This  is  yet  another 
sign  of  the  growing  interest  of  the  university  in  borough 
affairs.  The  petitions  to  the  parliaments  of  1304  and 
1305  are  particularly  interesting  illustrations  of  the  dif- 
ficulties of  the  townsmen  in  conducting  their  affairs  in 
the  face  of  the  opposition  of  the  university.  The  latter 
made  the  complaint  that  the  composition  between  it  and 
the  town  concerning  the  thirty-two  regrators  who  were 
to  be  allowed  in  Oxford,86  had  not  been  observed,  as  the 
townsmen  had  allowed  the  number  to  be  increased." 
The  response  to  the  petition  was  that  the  composition 
should  be  heeded.  Another  complaint  was  made  by 
the  university  that  the  millers  charged  too  high  a  toll 
for  grinding  wheat.88  The  assizes  also  were  neglected 
because  of  the  vacancy  of  the  sheriff's  office.89  Petition 
was  also  made  that  the  bailiffs,  who  had  in  their  charge 
the  custody  of  the  assize  of  bread  and  ale,  did  not,  on 
the  denunciation  of  the  chancellor,  punish  delinquent 
bakers  and  brewers.  And,  finally  it  was  asked  that 
strangers  coming  to  Oxford  with  fish  and  other  victuals 
might  sell  the  same  without  impediment.  In  the  an- 
swering royal  writ,  it  was  granted  that  they  might  do  so 
provided  that  they  did  not  sell  at  retail  and  on  condition 
that  they  paid  such  fees  as  were  customary.90 

While  considering  the  above  complaints  the  chron- 

86  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  49;  Ibid.,  I.,  51-52,  forfeited  unfit  victuals 
were  to  be  given  to  the  Hospital  of  St.  John. 

""This  seems  to  refer  to  the  agreement  of  1278,  although  the 
number  is  there  thirty-one  and  there  is  some  dispute  as  to  the 
reading  of  the  manuscript.  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  38;  Wood,  I.,  309; 
Lyte,  op.  cit.,  121;  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  III.,  103. 

87 Rot.  parl,  I.,  i63a  (1304). 

88  O.  H.  S.  Coll.,  III.,  104. 

w  Ibid.,  III.,  104. 

"  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  III.,  103 ;  Ogle,  op.  cit.,  17 ;  cf.  O.  H.  S.,  Coll., 
III.,  112,  117-118,  118-119,  119-120;  Rot.  parl,  I.,  327b,  373. 


57 

ological  development  of  the  market  has  been  overlook- 
ed, so  it  will  be  necessary  to  retrace  our  steps.  Be- 
cause of  the  failure  of  the  town  to  pay  its  customary 
fee-farm,  Edward  I,  in  1295,  seized  into  his  own  hands 
the  assize  of  bread  and  ale,  and,  though  leaving  the  actttal 
operation  of  the  assize  in  the  hands  of  the  usual  officials, 
he  commanded  that  all  fines  arising  from  this  control 
should  be  paid  to  the  constable  of  Oxford  castle.91  The 
king  thus  caused  a  serious  loss  of  revenue  to  the  town, 
and,  moreover,  the  burgesses  had  still  to  pay  one  hun- 
dred shillings  in  their  fee-farm  for  the  fines  which  had 
been  taken  from  them.  Yet  nothing  was  done  to  alle- 
viate their  condition  during  this  reign.  Edward  II  in 
consequence,  perhaps,  of  a  petition  of  the  townsmen 
complaining  of  the  injury  to  their  fee-farm  by  this  seiz- 
ure,92 granted  that  the  chancellor  of  the  university  and 
the  mayor  of  the  town  should  have  the  custody  of  this 
assize  upon  an  annual  payment  of  one  hundred  shillings, 
the  customary  rental.93  Even  this  did  not  relieve  the 
burgesses,  who  had  to  pay  the  same  sum  in  their  fee- 
farm,  while  also  paying  this  new  amount,  and  it  was  not 
until  the  reign  of  Edward  III  that  the  payment  of  the  one 
hundred  shillings  in  their  fee-farm  was  remitted.9* 

Two  interesting  occurrences  happening  in  the  reign  of 
Edward  II  illustrate  the  extent  of  the  university  in- 
fluence at  that  time.  During  the  year  1319  the  mayor 
and  bailiffs  were  ordered  to  assign  certain  places  in  the 
market  place  for  the  accommodation  of  strangers,  to 

91  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  III.,  126.    There  seems  to  be  some  confusion 
over  the  significance  of  this  seizure.     Ogle,  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  II., 
13,  following  Wood,  I.,  400,  states  that  the  king  seized  the  clerk- 
ship of  the  market,  yet  this  clerkship  as  defined  by  him,  op.  cit., 
44,  seems  to  have  special  reference  to  the  assize  of  weights  and 
measures.     And,  moreover,  none  of  the  later  actions  of  the  kings 
bear  out  this  idea. 

92  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  III..  (1323). 

88  Wood,  I.,  406;  Cal.  c.  r.,  Ed.  II.,  1323-27,  234  (1324). 
105  Co/,  p.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1338-40,  i?8,  (ii39). 


58 

distinguish  them  from  the  townsmen.95  But  they  were 
not  allowed  to  do  this  freely,  for  the  chancellor's  con- 
sent was  made  necessary  to  their  action  and  in  default 
of  them  he  was  empowered  to  proceed  alone  in  the  as- 
signment. The  reason  for  this  arrangement  of  the 
sellers  was  to  prevent  the  forestalling  of  such  strangers 
by  the  townsmen,  as  the  university  complained  had  been 
done.96  In  1325  again  the  mayor,  having  removed  the 
pillory  from  its  accustomed  place,  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  chancellor,  was  at  once  excommunicated 
by  the  latter  for  having  violated  the  privileges  of  the 
university.  In  spite  of  his  protests  he  had  to  acknowl- 
edge an  infringement  of  the  university  rights  and  a  re- 
moval was  then  agreed  to.97  Where  the  university 
gained  any  rights  over  the  borough  pillory  is  not  very 
clear,  but  it  may  have  been  due  to  the  fact  that  it  was 
commonly  used  as  a  means  of  punishment  for  infractions 
of  the  assizes,98  in  which  the  university  had  a  partial  in- 
terest. 

At  the  opening  of  Edward  Ill's  reign  the  assize  of 
bread  and  ale  was  already  under  the  joint  control  of  the 
mayor  and  chancellor.  The  same  position  with  regard 
to  the  assize  of  weights  and  measures  was  granted  to 
the  chancellor  and  mayor  in  the  first  year  of  the  same 
king.99  On  March  6,  1328,  he  reaffirmed  his  father's 
settlement  of  the  question  of  the  control  of  the  assize  of 
bread  and  ale,  with  the  addition  that  in  the  absence  of 
the  mayor  or  his  deputy  the  chancellor  might  hold  the 
assize  alone.100  That  yearly  rental  of  one  hundred  shill- 
ings was  continued.  On  the  same  day  the  assize  of 
weights  and  measures  was  granted  on  the  same  condi- 

95  Cal.  c.  r.,  Ed.  II.,  1318-23,  75 ;  O.  H.  S.,  Coll,  II.,  13 ;  Wood, 
I.,  400,  401. 

"Co/,  c.  r.,  loc.  cit.;  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  III.,  117-118,  119-120; 
Rot.  parl,  I.,  373. 

"Lyte,  op.  cit.,  125-126. 

*  E.  g.,  Stat.  realm,  I.,  202 ;  Cal.  c.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  133840,  178,  etc. 
etc. 

"Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1327-30,  21. 

"•Ibid.,  248-249. 


59 

tions,  the  rental  excepted.101  Later  in  the  year,  October 
25th,  Edward  made  the  matter  still  more  definite.103 
•  The  chancellor,  with  the  aldermen,  was  to  have  the 
custody  of  the  measures  of  the  assize,  the  pottle,  gallon 
and  quart,  which  custody  the  chancellor  and  mayor  had 
in  the  past.  All  the  fines,  however,  were  to  go  to  the 
mayor  and  bailiffs  toward  the  fee-farm  of  the  town.  The 
assize  of  bread  and  ale  and  "of  the  weights  thereto  be- 
longing" was  placed  under  the  control  of  the  chancellor 
and  mayor  at  a  yearly  rental  of  one  hundred  shillings. 
In  both  cases  the  town  officials  were  subject  to  the  call 
of  the  chancellor  at  any  time  in  order  that  the  assizes 
might  be  taken.  If  the  mayor  declined  to  be  present 
at  the  assize  of  bread  and  ale  the  chancellor  might  take 
it  alone  and  if  the  alderman  proceeded  in  his  absence, 
without  due  notice,  their  trial  of  the  weights  and  meas- 
ures would  have  to  be  repeated  if  the  chancellor  de- 
manded it.  In  1338  this  settlement  seems  to  have  been 
agreed  to  in  part  at  least  at  a  meeting  of  the  scholars 
and  burgesses.103 

From  this  time  until  the  final  stage  of  the  develop- 
ment was  reached  there  was  practically  no  change  in 
the  general  conditions,  although  some  minor  points 
were  adjusted.  The  price  of  wine  caused  some  little 
difficulty  in  1331  and  it  was  ordered  that  it  should 
not  exceed  that  of  London  by  more  than  one  half-penny 
on  each  gallon,  the  customary  carriage  rate.104  Some 
additional  clauses  were  added  to  the  previous  charter 
concerning  the  assizes  in  1339,  providing  for  the  punish- 
ment of  offenders.105  The  threat  was  made  that,  if  the 
town  officials  were  remiss  in  their  assistance  of  the 
chancellor  in  the  custody  of  the  assizes,  they  should  lose 

101  Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1327-30,  251. 
mlbid.,  329;   cf.,  Ibid.,  Ed.  III.,  1334-38,  232  (1336). 
108  Wood,  I.,  435- 

104  Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1330-34,  28,  186,  390;   cf.  Stat.  realm,  I., 
264. 
**Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  HI.,  1338-40,  i?8,  d339)- 


60 

their  liberties.106  And,  finally,  in  1348,  the  town  and 
university  again  came  to  an  agreement,  this  time  as  to 
the  joint  control  of  the  assize  of  weights  and  measures,107 
for  it  seems  that  the  town  had  not  fully  accepted  the 
former  royal  commands.  According  to  this  compromise 
if  the  mayor  did  not  appear  at  the  trial,  the  chancellor 
was  to  collect  and  hold  the  suspicious  weights  and 
measures  until  he  came,  and  the  mayor  was  to  do  like- 
wise in  the  absence  of  the  chancellor.  When  both  par- 
ties were  present  these  illegal  measures  could  be  de- 
stroyed. This  agreement,  though  not  in  the  terms  of 
his  own  commands,  was  ratified  by  Edward  III  dur- 
ing the  following  year;108  but  it  was  destined  to  give 
way  in  a  short  time  before  the  great  settlement  of  1355. 
The  town  and  gown  fight  on  St.  Scholastica's  day, 
February  10,  1355,  cannot  be  described  here,  for  it  is 
only  with  its  effects  that  we  are  concerned.109  It  lasted 
several  days,  during  its  course  some  men  were  killed  on 
both  sides,  and  as  a  result  of  it  the  town  was  laid  under 
an  interdict  by  the  bishop  of  Lincoln  and  the  sheriff 
was  removed  from  his  office  by  a  commission  sent  out 
by  the  king.110  The  town  and  the  university  had  to 
give  up  their  charters  to  Edward  III  and  submit  the 
matter  to  his  decision.111  When  the  university  privi- 
leges were  restored  in  the  charter  of  June  27,  1255,  it 
was  given  several  new  privileges.112  In  the  town  of  Ox- 
ford and  its  suburbs  the  chancellor  was  to  have  forever 
the  full  and  complete  custody  of  the  assizes  of  bread, 
wine  and  ale  and  the  correction  and  punishment  of  all 
offenders  against  the  same,  with  all  fines,  amerciaments 
and  profits  arising  therefrom,  rendering  for  this  custody 

108  Wood,  I.,  442  (1346). 

imMun.  acad.,  I.,  159-167;  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  II.,  52. 
108  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  II.,  52. 

109Lyte,  op.  cit,  162-164;    Boase,  Oxford,  85  sq. ;  documents, 
Rogers,  op.  cit.,  245  sq. 

110  B.  M.  MSS.  Add.,  4507,  fol.  23. 

111  Hardy,  Syllabus,  381 ;    Rogers,  op.  cit.,  249-250. 

112 O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  II.,  52-53;    Ogle,  op.  cit,  62  sq.;    confirmed 
Cat.  p.  r.,  Rich.  II.,  1381-85,  514  (1384). 


61 

the  sum  of  one  hundred  shillings  to  the  royal  exchequer. 
This  amount  was,  of  course,  merely  the  old  payment 
made  during  the  preceding  period.  The  chancellor 
was  also  to  have  the  full  custody  of  the  assize,  assay  and 
supervision  of  weights  and  measures  within  the  same 
limits,  with  the  power  of  destroying  all  false  measures 
and  of  punishing  delinquents.  The  fines  arising  from 
this  authority  were,  however,  to  go  to  the  mayor  and 
bailiffs  of  Oxford  in  aid  of  their  fee-farm.  He  was 
further  granted  complete  jurisdiction  over  all  fore- 
stallers,  regrators  and  sellers  of  putrid  flesh  or  fish  in 
Oxford  and  its  suburbs,  the  forfeited  victuals  to  go  to  the 
hospital  of  St.  John  without  the  east  gate,  as  in  the 
past.  In  order  to  carry  these  commands  more  fully 
into  effect  the  mayor  and  bailiffs  were  charged  to  hand 
over  to  the  chancellor  the  standard  weights  and  meas- 
ures and  the  royal  seal,  which  they  had  in  their  pos- 
session.113 

The  university,  through  its  chancellor,  had  finally 
reached  the  goal  towards  which  it  had  been  striving  for 
so  long  a  period.  Since  it  now  had  the  upper  hand  the 
disputes  with  the  town  henceforward  took  on  a  new 
aspect,  matters  of  definition  and  limitation  of  the  chan- 
cellor's power  replacing  the  older  efforts  of  the  univer- 
sity to  lessen  the  power  of  the  town  government. 

Almost  immediately  upon  the  reception  of  his  new 
privileges  by  the  chancellor,  he  became  involved  in  a 
controversy  over  the  custody  of  the  assizes  with  Richard 
d'Amory,  the  holder  in  fee-farm  from  the  crown  of  the 
hundred  without  the  north  gate  of  Oxford.  The  dis- 
pute was  settled  in  favor  of  the  chancellor  by  the  king, 
the  powers  which  he  possessed  over  the  various  assizes 
and  over  forestallers  and  regrators  and  the  like  in  Ox- 
ford, being  extended  to  this  hundred,  with  the  proviso 
that  nothing  was  to  come  to  him  from  the  sale  or 
measurement  of  woolen  cloth.11*  In  his  next  attempt 

m  Ogle,  op.  cit.,  57. 

114  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  176-178;   O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  II.,  53. 


62 

to  extend  his  jurisdiction  along  these  lines  the  chancel- 
lor was  not  so  successful.  He  claimed  the  right  of  hold- 
ing the  assizes  in  the  fair  of  the  priory  of  St.  Frides- 
wides,  but  when  the  latter  complained  to  Richard  II  this 
claim  was  disallowed.116 

Meanwhile  there  had  been  some  slight  dissensions 
within  the  university  over  the  disposal  of  the  fines  and 
forfeits  from  the  assizes.  Edward  III  ordered  that,  after 
the  one  hundred  shillings  rental  had  been  deducted  from 
the  total  amount  of  the  fines,  the  remainder  should  be 
divided  into  two  equal  parts,  one  to  go  to  the  university, 
the  other  to  the  chancellor.116  In  1401,  however,  this 
rent  was  remitted  by  Henry  IV  on  condition  that  the 
university  pay  one  penny  each  year  to  the  exchequer  at 
the  feast  of  St.  Michael.117 

The  growth  of  the  powers  of  the  university  of  Cam- 
bridge over  the  market  was  somewhat  slower  than  at 
Oxford,  although  in  its  completed  form  the  two  were 
almost  the  same.  .One  reason  for  this  seems  to  be  that 
there  was  not  the  same  bitter  hostility  between  the  town 
and  gown  as  it  existed  in  the  other  borough. 

The  university  soon  gained  a  share  in  the  supervision 
of  the  assizes,  as  did  Oxford.  In  1268,  among  the  royal 
regulations  for  the  better  management  of  the  market, 
it  was  granted  that  the  chancellor  might  be  present, 
if  he  wished,  at  the  taking  of  the  assize  of  bread  and 
ale.  If  he  should  not  be  present  because  he  was  not 
notified,  the  assize  was  to  be  of  no  force.118  Over  regra- 
tors  and  forestallers  the  chancellor  soon  attained  a  par- 
tial jurisdiction.  When  Henry  enacted,  in  1268,  that 
no  regrator  should  buy  victuals  in  the  town  to  sell  again 
at  retail  before  the  third  hour,  he  did  not  mention  the 

"'Rot.  parl.,  III.,  176;   Cat.  p.  r.,  Rich.  II.,  1381-85,  202  (1382)  ; 
O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  II.,  53-54- 
111  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  187-188  (1356)  ;   O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  II.,  53. 

117  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  II.,  54;    Edward  IV.  confirmed  this  grant 
after  the  acts  of  resumption;    Griffith,  Enactments  in  parl.,  8-9 
(12  and  13  Edward  IV.). 

118  Cooper,  I.,  50-51 ;   Dyer,  Privileges  univ.  Catnbr.,  I.,  64. 


63 

university.119  Edward  I,  however,  by  his  letter  patent, 
granted  that  the  chancellor  and  the  mayor  and  bailiffs 
were  to  have  cognizance  of  all  such  offenders  within  the 
town  and  the  chancellor  and  sheriff  of.  those  without 
Cambridge,  with  respect  to  the  infringement  of  the  law 
and  the  disposal  of  the  forfeits.120  All  the  forfeited 
victuals  were  to  be  given  to  the  hospital  of  St.  John, 
Cambridge. 

The  early  part  of  the  fourteenth  century  brought  no 
great  change  in  the  royal  policy.  Edward  II  made 
clearer  the  position  of  the  chancellor  by  regulating  the 
manner  of  his  summons  to  the  taking  of  the  assize  of 
bread  and  ale.121  When  the  trial  was  to  be  made  by  the 
town  officials,  the  chancellor  or  his  locum  tenens  was  to 
be  secretly  forewarned  on  the  preceding  day,  so  that  he 
might  be  present  if  he  so  desired.  Those  who  were 
deputed  for  this  purpose  by  him  were  to  swear  to  him 
not  to  reveal  this  warning  before  the  assize  should  be 
taken.  Again,  in  1327,  Edward  III  made  some  further 
rules  as  to  the  taking  of  this  assize  of  bread  and  ale, 
because  of  the  negligence  and  excesses  of  the  mayor 
and  bailiffs.122  It  had  been  charged  that  these  had  not 
been  inflicting  the  punishments  laid  down  in  the  charter 
of  Henry  III,  for  they  had  often  fined  a  transgressor  of 
the  assizes  twice  and  even  thrice  for  his  offence.  -There- 
fore the  king  commanded  that  the  chancellor  should  be 
present  at  all  the  trials  of  bread  and  ale,  so  that  such 
offenders  might  be  punished  according  to  the  forms  set 
forth  in  the  above  charter.  It  was,  furthermore,  pro- 
vided that  the  names  of  the  transgressors  should  be 
handed  over  to  the  chancellor  or  to  his  deputy,  that 
he  might  see  that  they  were  duly  punished.  After 

119  B.  M.  MSS.  Faustina,  C  III.,  fol.  145  sq.  where  all  the  docu- 
ments relating  to  regrators  and  forestallers  are  collected ;   Cooper, 
I-,   50-51. 

120  Co/,  p.  r.,  Ed.  I.,  1292-1301,  18;  confirmed  2  Ed.  II.,  I  Ed.  III. 
'"Cooper,  I.,  75-76  (1317)- 

122  Ibid.,  I.,  82;    cf.  Ibid.,  I.,  78  (1320). 


64 

some  other  complaints  of  the  neglect  of  the  town  of- 
ficials,123 the  chancellor  received  an  important  accession 
of  power.  Hitherto  the  mayor  and  bailiffs  had  been 
at  liberty  to  take  the  assize  when  they  saw  fit,  provided 
that  they  forewarned  the  chancellor;12*  in  1336,  how- 
ever, it  was  ordered  that  they  should  make  the  trial  as 
often  as  they  should  be  summoned  to  do  so  by  the  chan- 
cellor.125 This  form  the  settlement  maintained  during  the 
reign  of  Edward  III.  On  the  whole  the  growth  of  power 
seems  to  have  been  less  eventful  than  that  of  Oxford, 
and  there  seem  to  have  been  fewer  complaints  and  less 
reason  for  royal  action  than  in  the  other  town. 

Almost  immediately  upon  the  accession  of  Richard 
II  the  university  entered  upon  a  new  era  of  increased 
powers  over  the  market.  In  addition  to  confirming 
their  old  grants  he  gave  to  it  a  large  number  of 
new  privileges.  Answering  a  petition  made  to  him  bv 
the  university  he  granted  on  November  6,  1378,  that 
until  the  next  parliament  in  case  of  the  negligence  of 
the  mayor  and  bailiffs,  the  chancellor  "might  inquire  of 
all  things  touching  bread,  ale,  wine,  flesh,  fish  and  other 
victuals  unduly  sold,  and  weights  and  measures  and 
punish  transgressors."126  The  fines  arising  from  this 
authority  were,  however,  reserved  to  the  king  and 
others  interested.127  In  answer  to  a  petition  of  the  next 
year  requesting  an  extension  of  this  privilege,  he  con- 
tinued it  for  five  years,128  and  in  1380  for  seven  years.129 
Though  this  was  an  increase,  it  did  not  give  the  chancel- 
lor full  authority,  for  it  was  only  operative  in  the  event 
of  the  negligence  of  the  regular  officials.  'It  was  a  cor- 
rective measure  rather  than  a  grant  of  initiative  rights. 

The  final  overthrow  of  the  power  of  the  town  of  Cam- 

21  Cooper,  L,  88   (i335)- 

24  B.  M.  Mss.,  5822,  fol.  252. 

24  Ibid. ;   Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  III.,  1334-38,  235 ;   Cooper,  L,  88. 

2*  Cooper,  I.,   117. 

27  B.  M.  Mss.,  5822,  fol.  252. 

28  Ibid.,  fol.  252;    Cooper,  I.,  118. 
129  Cooper,  I.,  119. 


65 

bridge  over  the  assizes  was  due  to  a  great  riot  in  that 
place.  The  peasants  revolt  of  1381  took  on  an  especially 
serious  aspect  there  and,  as  a  result  of  it,  Richard  demand- 
ed the  charters  of  both  the  university  and  the  borough.130 
All  of  their  privileges  having  been  taken  into  hands  of 
the  crown,  the  scholars  were  to  live  henceforward,  until 
they  were  given  new  privileges,  under  the  law  of  the 
land  and  the  customs  of  the  borough.131  A  settlement 
of  the  trouble  was  not  reached  until  1382,  when,  on  Feb- 
ruary 17,  Richard  issued  a  charter  to  the  university, 
granting  to  it  many  privileges  formerly  belonging  to  the 
town,  and  when,  on  May  I,  he  restored  to  the  town  its 
charters,  less  those  rights  now  given  to  the  university.132 
The  new  charter  granted  to  the  university  dealt  prin- 
cipally with  the  question  of  the  regulation  of  the  assizes 
and  matters  of  a  similar  nature.  The  chancellor  and  his 
successors  forever  were  given  the  custody  of  the  assize 
of'bread,  wine  and  ale  within  the  town  and  suburbs  of 
Cambridge  with  all  fines,  amerciaments  and  forfeits 
therefrom  arising.  He  was  also  put  in  possession  of 
the  assize  and  assay  of  weights  and  measures  within 
the  same  district,  having  the  power  to  burn  and  destroy 
all  such  measures  as  he  should  find  to  be  false,  and  to 
seal  such  as  were  correct.  The  power  to  punish  all 
breakers  of  this  assize  was  also  given  to  him.  Fore- 
stallers,  regrators,  and  sellers  of  putrid,  corrupt  or  un- 
fit fish,  flesh,  or  other  victuals  were  placed  within  his 
cognizance  alone,  and  he  was  given  the  power  to  punish 
them  and  to  receive  all  profits  which  might  arise.  For 
these  privileges  the  chancellor  was  to  render  ten  pounds 
each  year  to  the  royal  treasury.  The  mayor  and  bailiffs 
were  strictly  commanded  to  assist  the  chancellor  in  the 
exercise  of  these  powers  if  he  should  deem  their  aid 
necessary.133  In  addition,  on  March  13,  1382,  Richard 

130  For  a  full  account  of  the  trouble  see  Cooper,  I.,  120-125. 
j81  Cooper,  I.,  124-125. 

m  Maitland  and  Bateson,  op.  cit,  28  sq. ;  Cooper,  I.,  125. 
""Cooper,  I.,  124-125. 


66 

sent  letters  patent  to  his  justices,  to  the  sheriff  and  to 
the  mayor  and  bailiffs,  charging  them  to  observe  all  the 
above  chartered  rights.18* 

During  the  period  following  this  charter  the  royal 
regulations  did  not  touch  the  essential  fact  of  the  chan- 
cellor's power,  but  dealt  with  matters  of  definition,  as 
we  have  noticed  to  have  been  the  case  in  Oxford.  It 
having  been  reported  to  the  king  that  false  weights  and 
measures  had  been  used  at  the  Steresbrigge  fair,  the 
chancellor,  in  1382,  was  ordered  to  watch  over  the  assize 
of  weights  and  measures  in  that  place.135  Again,  in 
1384,  a  closer  definition  was  made  of  several  of  the  chan- 
cellor's rights.  A  dispute  arose  between  the  latter  and 
the  town  officials  over  the  sizing  and  sealing  of  the 
bushels  and  other  measures,  and  over  the  fees  which 
were  paid  for  this  service.  The  university  claimed  this 
right  as  included  in  their  charter,  while  the  townsmen 
maintained  that,  as  it  was  not  expressly  granted  in  the 
charter,  it  belonged  to  them.136  The  matter  finally  came 
before  parliament,  the  sheriff  collecting  and  holding  the 
fees  by  the  royal  command  during  the  interval.137  In 
parliament  it  was  decided  that  the  chancellor  had  the 
right  to  size  and  seal  all  such  measures  in  the  fairs, 
markets  and  other  places  of  the  town,  and  that  he  should 
have  whatever  fees  were  received  for  this  service.138 
This  was  declared  to  be  within  his  rights  because  of  the 
previous  charter  of  Richard.  In  the  same  parliament 
and  with  its  advice,  Richard  declared  that  the  chancellor 
might  summon  the  men  of  the  town  to  make  present- 
ment upon  oath  concerning  forestallers  and  regrators 
and  putrid  and  corrupt  fish,  flesh  and  other  victuals,  and 
to  punish  those  who  refused  by  amerciaments  or  in  the 
manner  used  by  the  chancellor  and  scholars -of  Oxford.139 

134  Cal.  p.  r.,  Rich.  II.,  1381-85,  104. 

135  Cooper,  I.,  126. 
184  Ibid.,  I.,  128. 

137  Docs.  rel.  univ.  and  coll.  Cambr.,  I.,  29. 
™Rot.  parl,  III.,  185;  Cooper,  I.,  128-129. 
"*  Ibid. 


67 

On  the  tenth  of  December  the  king  sent  his  letters 
patent  to  the  university  to  this  effect,140  and,  on  the 
twelfth,  he  made  his  wishes  known  to  the  town,  forbid- 
ding the  mayor  and  bailiffs  under  penalty  of  £100  to  fine 
any  such  transgressors.1*1 

The  work  of  definition  was  continued  during  the  re- 
maining years  of  our  period.  In  1386,  in  consequence 
of  a  dispute  over  the  meaning  of  the  term  victuals, 
candles  and  fuel  were  placed  within  that  category  and 
the  cognizance  of  those  selling  these  articles  was  given 
to  the  chancellor.142  The  university  again  petitioned 
the  parliament  of  1388  for  a  clearer  definition  of  certain 
other  phrases  in  their  charters.143  They  asked  that  the 
clause  relating  to  regrators  might  be  changed  to 
"amerced  in  the  presence  of  the  chancellor."  Another 
clause  stated  that  wine  should  be  sold  in  Cambridge 
''indifferently  to  clerks  and  to  laymen  from  the  cask;" 
they  asked  that  this  might  be  amended  to  read  that  wine 
should  not  be  sold  for  more  than  one  half-penny  per 
gallon  above  the  London  prices  as  was  done  at  Oxford. 
This  charge  was  that  made  for  the  carriage  of  the  wine. 
Though  it  seems  that  no  answer  was  given  to  this  peti- 
tion it  illustrates  extremely  well  the  difficulties  the  uni- 
versity was  having,  which  difficulties  greatly  resemble 
those  of  the  town  before  the  university  had  gained  its 
increased  powers. 

.    14°  Cat.  p.  r.,  Rich.  II.,  1381-85,  5H- 

141  Cooper,  I.,  129. 

142  Ibid.,  I.,  131 ;   Docs.  rel.  univ.  and  coll.  Cambr.,  I.,  30. 

143  Ibid.,  I.,  132. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  UNIVERSITIES  AND  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT. 

The  relation  of  the  universities  to  the  central  govern- 
ment with  its  various  officials,  was  in  general  that  of 
the  whole  clerical  body;  yet  there  are  a  few  cases  of 
special  treatment  requiring  a  discussion  here.  Many  of 
these  relations  have  already  been  described  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapters  and  will,  consequently,  require  only  the 
briefest  notice  in  this  place. 

From  the  judicial  authority  of  the  various  royal 
justices  the  members  of  the  university  were  exempted, 
except  in  the  special  cases  noted  of  freehold,  felony  and 
mayhem,  the  chancellor  trying  the  other  cases  by  the 
consent  of  the  king.  In  the  event  of  a  dispute  arising 
concerning  a  free  tenure  or  if  a  crime  was  committed 
which  came  under  the  above  heading,  the  usual  laws 
applying  to  the  clergy  would  also  apply  to  the  privi- 
leged classes  of  the  universities.  When,  therefore,  a 
scholar  was  charged  with  a  murder  the  coroner  went 
through  with  the  procedure  customary  in  such  cases,1 
the  clerk  being  finally  handed  over  to  the  bishop  of 
Lincoln  or  of  Ely  for  trial  and  punishment.  The  one 
exception  to  this  rule  during  the  period  of  this  study 
was  the  right  given  to  the  seneschal  of  trying  the 
scholars'  servants  in  Oxford  for  their  felonies.2  Before 
the  various  royal  justices,  of  assize,  of  gaol  delivery  and 
the  like,  the  scholars  were  summoned  and  tried  for  their 
felonies,  and  here  also  the  usual  procedure  was  ob- 
served, the  clerk  being  delivered  to  the  bishop  of  the 
diocese  for  trial  if  the  crime  involved  the  death  penalty. 
The  gaol  delivery  rolls  especially  reveal  an  appalling 
amount  of  crime  in  the  university  towns,  for  they  are 

1  Cf.  Gross,  Coroners'  rolls.     Introduction ;    Pollock  and  Mait- 
land,  History  English  laiv,  ed.  1895,  I.,  245  sq. ;    Rogers,  op.  cit, 
coroners'  rolls. 

2  Supra.    21. 


69 

filled  with  accounts  of  clerks  who  are  charged  with 
robbery,  arson,  murder,  rape  and  other  misdeeds.  The 
abbreviation  lib.  epi.,  delivered  to  the  bishop,  is  found 
in  the  margin  of  almost  every  membrane  of  the  Oxford 
or  Cambridge  rolls  and  at  times  in  large  numbers.3 

From  the  ordinary  judicial  powers  of  the  royal  justices 
except  in  the  cases  noted  the  scholars  were  exempt,  but 
when,  as  often  happened,  the  great  riots  got  beyond  the 
control  of  the  town  and  university  authorities,  the  king 
always  exercised  the  power  to  send  commissions  of  oyer 
and  terminer  to  the  towns  to  settle  the  disturbance  and 
to  try  the  offenders.4  The  frequency  of  these  commis- 
sions bears  out  the  idea,  gained  elsewhere,  of  the  great 
disorder  in  the  universities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge. 

The  sheriff  had  no  authority  over  the  clerks  in  the 
universities  that  he  did  not  exercise  over  the  other 
clergy.  On  the  other  hand  he  was  compelled  by  royal 
commands  to  give  to  the  chancellors  the  aid  of  his 
posse  whenever  the  latter  might  desire  it.  The  other 
royal  officials,  viz:  purveyors,  escheators,  constables 
and  the  like,  had  no  unusual  relations  with  the  scholars. 

There  are,  however,  certain  conditions,  with  respect 
to  taxation  in  which  the  universities  differed  from  the 
rest  of  the  clergy,  which  must  be  discussed.  There  may 
have  been  special  rules  elsewhere  of  a  similar  nature, 
but  the  cases  which  follow  a,re  due  to  grants  made 
to  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  not  to  general  enact- 
ments for  the  whole  clerical  body.  The  land,  for  ex- 
ample upon  which  were  built  the  houses  and  halls  in 
which  the  students  or  university  officials  dwelt,  was  in 
Oxford  early  recognized  as  being  exempt  from  tallages, 
aids  and  other  like  dues.8  This  exemption  rested  upon 
a  customary  right  of  clerical  immunity  in  the  town, 


3  E.  g.  Gaol  delivery  rolls  (Mss.),  Nos.  113,  7a,  180. 

4  Wood,  I.,  263,  298,  326,  361,  385,  426,  448,  497;   Cooper,  I.,  45, 
48,  70,  79- 

'Wood,  I.,  217,  345;    Mun.  acad.,  I.,  52;    Rashdall,  op.  cit,  II., 
II.,  399. 


70 

which  can  be  found  at  least  in  some  other  boroughs.' 
In  1313,  Edward  II  directed  that  the  sheriff  should  inves- 
tigate the  claim  of  the  university  of  Cambridge  that  they 
were  exempt  from  all  tallages,  no  charters  being  ad- 
vanced as  a  basis  for  the  exemption  on  either  side.7 
The  king  directed  that,  if  they  had  been  free  from  this 
tax  in  the  past,  they  were  to  be  free  from  it  in  this  case 
also. 

After  the  great  riot  of  St.  Scholastica's  day,  1355,  the 
chancellor  of  Oxford  gained  an  important  extension  of 
his  powers.  Though  he  had  judicial  authority  over  the 
scholars'  servants,  they  had  up  to  this  time  been  assessed 
their  share  of  the  taxes  by  the  town  officials.  To  pre- 
vent ill  treatment  at  their  hands,  the  chancellor  was 
given  the  power  to  assess  and  collect  the  taxes  from  these 
men  within  the  town  and  suburbs.8  This  right  was  de- 
nned to  extend  to  the  hundred  without  the  north  gate  in 
1356.*  It  seems  that  the  chancellor  of  Cambridge  did  not 
gain  this  privilege,  for  there  are  no  separate  accounts 
of  any  sums  handed  over  by  him  to  the  tax  collectors,  as 
we  shall  see  was  the  case  in  Oxford. 

With  respect  to  the  lay  subsidies  levied  during  the 
fourteenth  century,  the  universities  seem  to  stand  in  the 
same  position  as  their  class,  the  clergy,  but  their  rela- 
tion to  the  poll  taxes  was  exceptional.  They  had  a  two- 
fold affinity  to  these  taxes,  for,  while  the  scholars  and 
masters  would  be  taxed  under  the  clerical  grants,  their 
servants  would  have  to  pay  the  lay  taxes.  In  both  uni- 
versities the  scholars  would  have  their  share  of  the  poll 
taxes  assessed  and  collected  by  the  ecclesiastical  col- 
lectors. The  taxes  upon  the  servants  were,  however,  in 

*  Bateson,  Rec.  bar.  Leicester,  I.,  128  and  introd.  LIV. ;  York- 
shire inquisitions,  Brown,  II.,  63,  115. 

7  Cat.  c.  r.,  Ed.  II.,  1313-18,  26.    There  seems  to  be  some  con- 
fusion in  the  precedents  for  this  claim;  e.  g.  Cooper,  I.,  72  (1312). 
where  it  seems  that  they  are  assessed;    Maitland,  Township  and 
borough,  156  (1294),  where  they  are  probably  exempt;    Madox, 
Firma  burgi,  59-60.  where  they  are  assessed. 

8  Ogle,  op.  cit,  62  sq. 
'  Mun.  acad.,  I.,  117. 


71 

Oxford  assessed  and  collected,  not  by  the  regular  of- 
ficials appointed  for  this  purpose,  but  by  the  chancellor, 
who  then  handed  over  the  proceeds  to  the  royal  col- 
lectors.10 An  actual  record  of  this  being  done  was  made 
in  1379  when  the  sub-collectors  of  the  lay  poll  tax  for 
the  town  of  Oxford,  rendered  account  for  sixty  shillings 
and  two  pence  received  from  the  chancellor  for  the 
ministers  and  servants  of  the  scholars.11 

The  first  lay  poll  tax  granted  to  Edward  II  in  1377, 
was  a  simple  levy  of  one  groat,  i.  e.,  four  pence,  upon 
each  lay  person  in  the  realm,  male  and  female,  over  four- 
teen years  of  age,  beggars  being  excused.12  The  clergy 
in  their  grant  of  the  same  year  made  a  distinction  be- 
tween those  beneficed  and  those  unbeneficed,  the  former 
having  to  pay  twelve  pence,  the  latter  four  pence.13  The 
university  of  Oxford  at  once  complained  of  this  tax  upon 
unbeneficed  clerics.  As  many  of  the  scholars  must 
have  been  in  this  class,  Edward  III,  in  answer  to  the 
petition,  granted  them  a  remission  of  the  burden.14 
Owing,  perhaps,  to  the  slowness  of  the  clerical  collectors 
it  was  necessary  that  Richard  II  should  renew  this  grant 
upon  his  accession,15  after  the  university  had  petitioned 
him  for  that  privilege.16  A  further  exoneration  appear- 
ed in  I38i,17  and  a  confirmation  of  the  non-payment 
of  this  tax  in  1382.™  It  appears  that  the  proctors  of 
Oxford  collected  the  twelve  pence  levied  upon  the  bene- 
ficed clergy.19  Of  Cambridge  there  are  no  exceptional 
circumstances  or  exemptions  recorded. 

The  poll  tax  of  the  second  year  of  Richard  II  took  on 

10  Stat.  coll.  Oxford,  III.,  78  (1377);  this  being  an  extension 
of  the  grant  of  1355  dealing  with  the  lay  subsidies  in  general. 

11 L.  R.  T.  Subsidy  enrolled  accounts,  no.  8  m.  4  d. ;  see  ap- 
pendix A. 

"Rot.  parl,  II.,  364. 

13  Dowell,  A  history  of  taxation  in  England,  ed.  1888,  I.,  92. 

"This  writ  mentioned  Cal.  p.  r.,  Rich.  II.,  1377-81,  606. 

"  Wood,  L,  495. 

"  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  III.,  146-147. 

"  Cal.  p.  r.,  Rich.  II.,  1377-81,  606. 

"  Wood,  I.,  485. 
1    "  Ibid.,  I.,  495. 


72 

a  new  form.  It  was  a  graduated  tax,  each  person  pay- 
ing according  to  his  or  her  property.  The  lay  poll  tax 
levied  various  amounts  upon  the  inhabitants  of  the 
kingdom  from  ten  marks  upon  the  duke  of  Lancaster, 
to  one  groat  which  everyone  over  sixteen  years  of  age 
had  to  pay  if  they  could  afford  no  more.  The  clergy 
adopted  a  similar  plan  for  their  tax,  the  seculars  and 
regulars  alike  paying  according  to  the  value  of  their 
benefices,  while  those  who  were  unbeneficed  and  monks 
in  the  poorer  houses  were  to  pay  four  pence.21  Mendi- 
cants and  those  under  sixteen  years  of  age  were  ex- 
cused from  payment.  In  1380  the  king  granted  that 
the  unbeneficed  scholars  of  the  university  of  Oxford 
should  be  pardoned  their  share  of  this  tax  also.22.  It  is 
with  regard  to  the  lay  poll  tax  of  this  year  that  we  have 
the  notice  which  has  been  printed  in  the  appendix.23  The 
chancellor  collected  the  money  from  the  scholars'  serv- 
ants and  delivered  it  to  the  royal  collectors.  (The  cler- 
ical poll  tax  was  this  year  assessed  and  collected  by  the 
chancellor  and  proctors  in  obedience  to  a  command  of 
the  king.  Again  Cambridge  does  not  offer  any  unusual 
features,  the  rolls  of  the  lay  tax  bearing  no  mention  of 
any  separate  amount  received  from  the  chancellor.25 

The  last  poll  tax  was  granted  by  the  nation  during 
the  fourth  year  of  Richard.  Both  the  previous  methods 
having  proved  to  be  unsatisfactory,  the  form  of  the  lay 
tax  was  changed.  Upon  all  lay  persons,  male  and  fe- 
male, over  fifteen  years  of  age,  mendicants  excepted,  a 
levy  of  twelve  pence  was  to  be  made.  The  sum  total 
for  its  population  was  to  be  laid  upon  each  town  or  hun- 
dred, the  individual,  however,  paying  his  share  of  this 
total  according  to  his  property.26  The  clerical  grant  was 

™Rot.  parl,  III.,  57  sq. 

21  Wilkins,  Concilia,  III.,  141-142. 

22  Cal.  p.  r.,  Rich.  II.,  1377-81  426 ;  Stat.  coll.  Ox-ford,  III.,  35. 
13  Appendix  A. 

31  Stat.  coll.  Ox.,  III.,  78. 

28  L.  T.  R.,  Subsidy  enrolled  accounts,  no.  8  m  3  d. 

"Rot.  parl,  III.,  90. 


73 

^again  a  graduated  poll  tax,  making  the  same  distinction 
between  beneficed  and  unbeneficed  clergy  as  the  former 
grants  had  done.27  From  this  tax,  as  before,  the  un- 
beneficed scholars  of  Oxford  were  excused,  on  the  testi- 
mony of  the  bishops  that  the  beneficed  .members  of  the 
university  had  paid  their  share  of  the  taxation.28  The 
account  of  this  poll  tax,  printed  by  Mr.  Rogers,29  is  of 
interest  as  it  shows  that  many  men  who  served  the 
scholars,  but  who  lived  in  the  suburbs,  were  assessed 
by  the  royal  officials  and  not  by  the  chancellor.  The 
latter's  list  has  been  lost  or  mislaid,  so  that  any  estimates 
of  the  population  of  Oxford  at  this  time  are  apt  to  be 
misleading. 

During  the  fourteenth  century  there  is  a  beginning 
of  that  policy  which  was  carried  to  its  completion  dur- 
ing the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  whereby  the 
scholars  and  colleges  were  exempted  from  taxation.30 
In  1385  Richard  is  said  to  have  exempted  the  scholars 
of  Cambridge  "from  subsidies,  tenths  and  fifteenths  or 
other  taxes  for  their  tenements,  schools  or  books."31 
If  this  general  exemption  was  made  it  was  seemingly 
only  temporary,  for  during  the  fifteenth  century  the  ex- 
emptions of  special  colleges  continued.32 

To  those  points  of  contact  between  the  universitites 
and  the  central  government,  which  have  been  discussed, 
there  may  be  added  certain  others  which  also  illustrate 
the  unique  position  of  these  institutions.  It  has  been 
shown  that  some  of  the  taxes  were  mitigated  in  favor 
of  the  scholars  of  Oxford  and  this  same  policy  was 
carried  out  as  to  certain  general  laws. 

The  fourteenth  century  witnessed,  in  the  enactments 
of  Edward  III  and  Richard  II,  an  attempt  on  the  part 
of  the  English  crown  to  suppress  certain  ecclesiastical 

"Wilkins,   Concilia,   III.,   150. 

28  Cat.  p.  r.,  Rich  II.,  1381-85,  98. 

29  Rogers,  op.  cit.,  8  sq. 

30  Cooper,  I.,  272  (1504);   Ibid.,  I.,  296  (1514). 

31  Ibid.,  I.,  129. 

32  Docs.  rel.  univ.  and  coll.  Cambr.,  I.,  43-44 ;    on  Oxford,  see 
Stat.  coll.  Oxford,  III.,  52,  55,  56,  57;   Rogers,  op.  cit.,  105. 


74 

abuses,  especially  papal,  throughout  the  kingdom. 
From  the  action  of  some  of  these  the  universities  were 
exempted  so  that  the  scholars  might  not  be  discouraged 
in  their  endeavors  to  obtain  knowledge.  The  statutes 
of  provisors,  enacted  during  reigns  of  the  two  kings 
mentioned,  were  among  the  foremost  attempts  to  check 
the  papal  interference  in  England.  In  1392-3,  Richard 
was  given  the  right  to  modify  the  statute  of  that  year  as 
he  should  wish,  parliament  adding  that  he  should  bear 
in  mind  the  state  of  and  relief  of  the  universities  of  Ox- 
ford and  Cambridge.88  In  consequence  of  this  discre- 
tionary power,  Richard  granted,  in  1399,  to  the  chancel- 
lor and  graduates  of  these  universities,  that  they  might 
sue  at  the  apostolic  see  for  provisions  for  benefices.3* 
When  Henry  IV  came  to  the  throne  the  commons  again 
asked  that  he  should  modify  the  aforesaid  statute,  bear- 
ing in  mind  the  universities  which  "are  the  fountains  of 
the  clergy  of  this  realm."35  The  same  parliament  peti- 
tioned against  pluralities  and  non-residence  asking  how- 
ever, that  the  scholars  of  the  universities  should  be 
exempted  from  any  restrictions  upon  such  practices.8' 
Henry,  like  Richard,  granted  the  first  of  these  requests, 
allowing  the  present  and  future  graduates  in  divinity 
and  law  to  sue  for  provisions  at  Rome.37  The  same 
exemption  from  the  effect  of  this  restriction  was  contin- 
ued during  the  following  years,  in  order  that  the  clergy 
might  be  encouraged  to  study  at  the  universities.38 
There  is  also  recorded,  during  the  fifteenth  century,  an 
example  of  the  scholars  and  masters  of  Cambridge  hav- 
ing been  pardoned  all  praemunires,  though  this  was 
not  a  general  rule.39 
There  are  some  other  cases  of  exemption  from  gen- 

33  Rot.  parl,  III.,  30ib;   O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  III.,  151. 

"Wood,  I.,  535;    Cooper,  I.,  144. 

35  Rot.  parl.,  III.,  45Qa  (1400-1401). 

"  Ibid.,  III.,  468a. 

"Wood,  I.,  539-540  (1403);  Cooper,  I.,  149. 

"Cooper,  I.,  158  (1416),  186  (1437). 

*»  Ibid.,  I.,  187  (1437). 


75 

eral  laws  of  lesser  note.  When  the  regulations  against 
beggars  were  passed  in  1388  a  provision  was  added  that 
those  scholars  who  went  begging  should  be  allowed  to 
do  so  if  they  had  letters  testimonial  from  their  chancel- 
lor.40 The  students  who  were  commencing  in  the  uni- 
versities were  also  exempted  from  the  effects  of  the 
statute  of  liveries  passed  during  the  early  years  of  the 
fifteenth  century.41  When  much  later  the  stringent  law 
was  enacted  against  foreign  artisans  it  was  not  extend- 
ed to  those  who  should  be  or  were  at  the  universities.42 
And,  finally,  there  is  in  Oxford,  a  temporary  and  special 
exemption  in  certain  cases  from  the  prohibition  against 
unlawful  assemblies.43 

The  different  subjects  already  treated  have  been 
largely  a  turning  aside  from  some  general  rule  to  make 
special  conditions  for  the  universities.  But  the  kings, 
besides  encouraging  them  by  exemptions  and  grants  of 
rights  and  privileges  taken  from  others,  showed  their 
favor  in  their  still  more  positive  and  personal  gifts  and 
grants  to  these  bodies.  They  stand  in  the  position  of 
direct  benefactors  of  learning. 

One  phase  of  this  fostering  of  the  growth  of  the  uni- 
versities is  seen  in  the  royal  desire  that  foreign  stu- 
dents should  study  in  England.  In  1229,  before  the 
universities  had  reached  a  position  of  any  importance, 
Henry  III  invited  the  French  scholars,  molested  at 
home,  to  come  to  England,  but  he  does  not  mention  any 
particular  place  where  they  may  study.44  When,  how- 
ever, Oxford  and  Cambridge  had  attained  pre-eminence 
as  seats  of  learning,  he  was  equally  anxious  that  scholars 
should  enter  the  kingdom,  but  then  provided  that  they 
should  study  at  either  of  these  universities.  When 
Scotland  and  England  were  open  enemies  during  the 
fourteenth  century,  the  English  kings  granted  numer- 

"Stat.  realm,  II.,  58. 

"Cooper,  I.,  182  (1429). 

"Ibid.,  I.,  306  (1523). 

"Cal.  p.  r.,  Rich.  II.,  1381-85,  526  (1385). 

"Wood,  I.,  204;    Cooper,  I.,  40. 


76 

ous  licenses  to  Scotch  students  allowing  them  to  peace- 
ably enter  the  country  to  study  at  the  universities.45 
Such  licenses  were  also  granted  to  Irish  students.46 
Freedom  of  intercourse  was  also  secured  for  the  French 
students  in  the  treaty  of  Bretigny  of  I36o.47  Yet  when 
foreign  students  proved  unruly  or  England  was  at  war 
with  their  home  countries,  the  king  did  not  hesitate  to 
expell  them  from  the  realm.48 

The  English  students,  on  the  other  hand,  received 
more  material  aid  than  mere  licenses  to  study.  Already 
late  in  the  twelfth  century  there  are  examples  of  the 
royal  beneficence  in  the  record  of  a  number  of  subsidized 
students  who  were  living  in  Oxford  on  the  bounty  of 
the  crown.49  Yet  the  royal  aid  did  not  end  there,  for 
there  are  records  of  grants  of  land  and  money  made  to 
separate  colleges,50  and  Edward  III  endowed  liberally 
a  college  for  poor  students  in  Cambridge  of  his  own 
foundation.51  Besides  this,  the  several  kings  prevented 
by  their  prohibition,  the  growth  of  any  universities  other 
than  Oxford  and  Cambridge.  It  is  true,  however,  that 
in  1261  Henry  III  granted  a  license  to  the  seceding 
students  from  Oxford  to  study  at  Northampton.52  There 
they  were  joined  by  some  scholars  from  Cambridge  and 
the  venture  seemed  in  a  fair  way  to  succeed  when  he 
revoked  his  permission  and  directed  the  abolition 
of  the  newly  formed  university.63  Again,  in  the  four- 
teenth century,  the  students  of  Oxford,  because  of  in- 
ternal dissensions,  fled  from  the  town  to  study  in  peace 
at  Stamford.54  Their  attempt  was  in  vain,  for,  when  their 

48  Hardy,  Syllabus,  391,  393,  419,  430,  432,  442,  503  sq. 

48  Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  I.,  1292-1301,  139,  448;  Stat.  coll.  Oxford,  III., 
47  sq- 

"  Cosneau,  Les  grands  traites  de  la  guerre  de  cent  ans,  61. 

48  Wood,  I.,  485  (1369);    Cooper,  I.,  169  (1422). 

**O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  II.,  184  (1195-1199)  ;  cf.  Devon,  Issues  of  the 
exchequer,  6  (1225)  ;  Cal.  c.  r.,  Ed.  II.,  1307-13,  199  (1310). 

M  Cal.  p.  r.,  Ed.  HI.,  1327-30,  176,  195,  239;   Cooper,  I.,  188. 

"King's  Hall. 

"  Rymer,  Foedera,  ed.  Clarke,  I.,  403. 

51  Cooper,  I.,  48-49. 

"  On  the  whole  question  see  O.  H.  S.,  Coll.,  I.,  Henson,  The 
Stamford  schism. 


77 

numbers  had  grown  sufficiently  as  to  bring  them  into 
prominence,  Edward  III  stamped  out  this  embryo  rival 
of  the  older  universities.  He  stated  in  his  writ  to  this 
effect  "that  schools  or  studies  should  not  in  any  sort  be 
anywhere  held  within  the  kingdom  save  in  places 
where  there  are  now  universities."55  And,  indeed,  dur- 
ing the  remainder  of  our  period  there  were  no  such 
institutions  in  England  other  than  Oxford  and  Cam- 
bridge. 

The  more  purely  arbitrary  actions  of  the  royal  power 
need  not  detain  us  for  long.  Without  regarding  the 
decree  of  banishment  passed  by  the  university  the  king 
is  found  restoring  certain  scholars  to  other  privileges.56 
He  exempted  certain  men  from  the  action  of  the  uni- 
versity statutes  of  Oxford,  passed  regulations  as  to  de- 
grees on  his  own  initiative,58  directed  that  certain  men 
should  not  be  allowed  to  teach  because  of  their  opin- 
ions,59 and  once  at  least  settled  a  dispute  as  to  an  elec- 
tion in  the  university  of  Oxford.60  Most  of  these  mat- 
ters were  outside  of  the  usual  policy  of  royal  interfer- 
ence and  show  to  what  extent  the  crown  could  and  would 
go  to  enforce  its  control. 

After  all,  one  might  ask,  what  actual  benefits  did  the 
king  receive  from  these  universities?  Was  the  honor 
of  having  two  of  the  great  universities  of  Europe  within 
his  kingdom  the  only  recompense?  And  it  must  be  ans- 
wered there  was  little  else.  Indeed  not  much  more 
would  be  necessary  for  a  true  head  of  the  nation. 
In  prestige  and  renown  England  gained  much  through 
the  presence  of  the  great  teachers  at  the  universities; 
great  men  came  to  visit  and  study  there;  their  scholars 

55  Cooper,  I.,  87. 

"  Stat.  coll.  Oxford,  III.,  32,,  39,  41,  Wood,  I.,  489. 
"Wood,  I.,  487-488  (1375). 
68  Stat.  coll.  Oxford,  III.,  40. 

"Wood,  I.,  524-525;    Stat.  coll.  Oxford,  III.,  44;    Hardy,5"y/- 
labus,  I.,  520. 
"Wood,  I.,  516  (1385). 


78 

were  leaders  in  the  intellectual  life  of  England  as  well 
as  the  wise  advisers  of  the  crown.  To  pious  men  the 
prayers  of  the  receivers  of  the  royal  benefits  might  have 
added  to  the  royal  enjoyment  of  life,  though  such  gifts 
did  not  prevent  the  Oxford  students  in  the  thirteenth 
century  from  actively  aiding  the  barons. 

Of  actual  aid  asked  from  the  universities  by  the 
kings  there  are  but  few  examples.  The  earliest  case 
of  the  kind  occurred  in  1243  when  Henry  III  requested 
Oxford  and  Paris  to  decided  a  disputed  episcopal  elec- 
tion.61 As  Oxford  gave  a  judgment  favoring  Henry 
the  opposing  bishop  was  publicly  defamed  in  the  schools. 
When  the  great  schism  broke  out  Richard  II  asked 
that  university  and  Cambridge  for  their  opinions  con- 
cerning the  matter.62  Again  when  the  great  councils 
were  being  held  the  chancellors  of  Oxford  and  Cam- 
bridge were  sent  abroad  to  represent  the  universities 
and  the  honor  of  England  at  the  council  of  Constance.63 
In  1413  the  chancellors  had  been  sent  to  the  rival  popes 
to  express  the  royal  decision  upon  their  pretensions.64 
In  secular  affairs  some  use  was  also  made  of  these  great 
corporations.  There  are  some  examples  of  the  king 
having  asked  the  universities  to  send  men  to  parlia- 
ment to  give  him  advice.  He  requested  them,  in  1300, 
to  send  lawyers  to, the  parliament  at  Lincoln  to  advise 
him  concerning  the  claim  of  his  ancestors  to  Scotland 
and  we  know  that  Cambridge  sent  two  men,  Hugh 
Sampson  and  Roger  de  Waldene,  to  perform  this  duty.65 
When,  again,  Edward  II  had  his  long  dispute  with  the 
king  of  France  over  the  continuance  in  that  country  of 
his  wife  and  eldest  son,  he  caused  an  account  of  the  state 
of  affairs  to  be  sent  to  the  universities  for  publication 
there.66  Later  in  the  same  year  he  requested  that  in 

"  Wood,  I.,  233. 

"Ibid.,  I,  S33-S34;    Cooper,  I.,  144  (1398). 
"Ibid.,  I.,  509;    Cooper,  I.,  158 
M  Cooper,  I.,  155. 

"  Ibid.,  L,  69 ;    I  have  not  been  able  to  find  the  names  of  the 
Oxford  lawyers,  though  they  were  undoubtedly  elected 
"Cal.  c.  r.,  Ed.  II.,  1323-27,  551-552. 


79 

their  sermons  and  in  their  prayers  they  should  vindicate 
his  actions  in  this  matter.67  On  the  whole,  therefore  the 
positive  and  tangible  benefits  the  crown  received  were 
few. 

The  marvelous  growth  of  the  universities  traced  in 
the  preceding  pages  left  them  at  the  end  of  the  four- 
teenth century  in  a  position  of  almost  complete  theoreti- 
cal independence  of  the  local  and  royal  authorities. 
They  now  had  their  own  courts ;  they  had  prisons  in 
which  to  place  their  offenders,  even  though  these 
prisons  were  not  their  own,  and  they  had  officials  whose 
duty  it  was  to  arrest  and  watch  over  any  who  they 
might  imprison.  The  bishop,  once  strong  in  his  con- 
trol, had  lost  what  authority  he  had  over  them  and  the 
archdeacon's  powers  had  been  restricted  to  very  narrow 
limits.  In  the  town  their  supervision  had  been  extend- 
ed over  many  of  the  important  functions  of  the  borough 
government  and  other  actions  they  had  gathered  into 
their  own  hands.  From  the  interference  of  the  royal 
officials  they  had  been  to  a  large  extent  released  through 
their  judicial  privileges  and,  in  Oxford  at  least,  through 
their  powers  over  taxation.  Certain  local  differences 
appear  in  their  development  but  these  are  mainly  due  to 
the  different  positions  of  the  two  universities.  The 
episcopal  seat  was  farther  from  Oxford  than  from  Cam- 
bridge and  its  release  from  the  bishop's  rule  came 
sooner ;  the  former  also  grew  in  numbers  more  quick- 
ly than  the  latter  and  reaching  importance  more  quick- 
ly on  this  account,  the  royal  benefits  were  generally  first 
bestowed  upon  Oxford.  These  are  but  suggestions,  for 
the  real  causes  of  the  more  rapid  growth  of  Oxford  can 
only  be  guessed,  not  shown,  nevertheless  the  position 
of  the  universities  at  the  end  of  our  period  is  not  notic- 
ably  different.  Cambridge  copied  Oxford,  it  is  true, 
in  many  points  and  the  precedent  for  many  of  its  royal 
grants  was  that  Oxford  already  possessed  such  rights, 
yet  this  may  be  but  another  way  of  saying  that  the  king 

"  Cal.  c.  r.,  Ed.  II.,  1323-27,  644  (1326)  ;   Cooper,  I.,  81. 


80 

applied  to  new  organizations  the  principles  he  saw  work- 
ing in  older  and  tried  institutions. 

In  the  development  of  the  mediaeval  corporation, 
therefore,  the  universities  occupy  an  important  though 
not  an  unique  position.  The  English  kings  during  the 
middle  ages  proceeded  largely  by  analogy.  When  they 
granted  powers  to  a  new  borough  they  generally  gave  it 
those  possessed  in  whole  or  in  part  by  some  other  bor- 
ough. Thus  Oxford  was  modeled  after  the  fashion  of 
London  and  other  boroughs  gained  similar  privileges  by 
a  similar  process.  Local  divergences  crept  in  to  suit 
special  conditions  and  special  needs  or  as  a  particular 
favor  from  the  crown,  yet  the  point  that  strikes  an  ob- 
server is  the  underlying  sameness  of  the  royal  char- 
ters and  letters  patent.  And  so  it  was  in  the  case  of  the 
universities.  The  kings  of  England  did  not  create  a 
wholly  new  and  exceptional  institution,  but  applied  to 
these  gatherings  of  students  the  principles  they  had 
already  used  in  the  boroughs  and  toward  the  church 
organizations.  An  interesting  analogy  has  been  drawn 
between  the  powers  possessed  by  the  universities  and 
those  enjoyed  by  the  merchants  of  the  staple  under  the 
statute  of  29  Edward  III.68  Their  privileges  and  immuni- 
ties do  indeed  bear  a  striking  resemblance  at  many 
points,  but  all  this  means  is  that  when  the  King  wished 
to  set  off  a  body  of  men,  scholars  or  merchants  from 
probably  hostile  local  authorities,  he  used  similar  means 
to  attain  his  end.  Analogies  might  be  pursued  along 
many  lines  and  the  result  would  undoubtedly  be  that  we 
would  find  precedents  for  most  of  the  royal  grants  to  the 
universities.  If,  therefore,  there  is  some  underlying  set 
of  forms  governing  the  development  of  the  many  cor- 
porations of  England  during  the  middle  ages,  this  study 
of  the  privileges  of  the  universities  of  Oxford  and  Cam- 
bridge will  help  to  show  that  sameness  in  the  powers  of 
the  various  organizations  of  the  time  which  has  not,  to 
my  mind,  been  sufficiently  emphasized. 

"  B.  M.  Mss.,  5959,  Plut.  XX.  A,  fol.  191  sq. 


APPENDIX  A. 

Poll  Tax,  2  Richard  II. 

L.  T.  R.  Subsidy  Enrolled  Accounts  No.  8.  45  Ed- 
ward III.  to  4  Richard  II.  Membrane  4,  dorse. 

Compotus  Willelmi  Dagnill,  Ricardi  Salesbury  Jo- 
hannis  de  Bukyngham  Johannis  de  Hampton  Walteri 
Browne  et  Willelmi  Chiselhampton  collectorum  subsidii 
predicti  in  villa  Oxonie  et  suburbiis  eiusdem  tenandi  et 
percipiendi  ad  opus  Regis  juxta  assessionem  et  taxa- 
cionem  Johannis  Gibbes  Willelmi  Codeshale  Willelmi 
Northryn  Nicholai  Spicer  Thome  de  Newyn  et  Roberti 
Dege  assignatorum  at  dictum  subsidium  ibidem  assiden- 
'dum  et  taxandum  ac  numerum  et  nomina  personarum  et 
cuius  status  et  gradus  fuerint  et  alia  que  in  hac  parte  re- 
quiruntur  plenarie  continentes  distincte  et  aperte  certifi- 
canda  et  huiusmodi  assesiones  et  taxaciones  per  indentur- 
as  huiusmodi  contrarotulandas  et  super  compotum  predic- 
torum  collectorum  ad  scaccarium  Regis  testificandas  et  per 
rotulos  indentatos  predictorum  assessorum  et  taxatorum 
ac  collectorum  super  hunc  compotum  liberatas.  De  huius- 
modi subsidio  ut  infra. 

lidem  reddunt  compotum  de  XXXVI  li.  VIII  s.  VI  d. 
receptis  de  predicto  subsidio  contingente  omnes  per- 
sonas  tarn  dominos  Magnates  quam  Communitates  in 
predicta  villa  Oxonie  et  suburbiis  eiusdem  Ministris  et 
servientibus  scolarium  universitatis  ibidem  exceptis 
juxta  assessionem  et  taxacionem  supradictas  quarum 
personarum  nomina  status  gradus  et  summe  particu- 
lares  singillatim  annotantur  in  predictis  rotulis  indenta- 
tis  ipsorum  collectorum  assessorum  et  taxatorum  de 
particulis  in  thesaurio  liberatis.  Et  de  LX  s.  II  d.  re- 
ceptis de  subsidio  predicto  contigente  predictos  Minis- 
tros  et  servientes  scholarium  universitatis  predicte  per 
Cancellarium  eiusdem  universitatis  assesso  et  tenato  et 
per  dictum  Cancellarium  predictis  Collectoribus  per  in- 
6 


82 

denturam  liberatis  quarum  personarum  nomina  status 
et  gradus  singillatim  annotantur  in  Indentura  per  dic- 
tum Cancellarium  predictis  virtute  brevis  Regis  sibi  di- 
recti  liberata  sicut  continetur  in  eisdem  rotulis  de  par- 
ticulis  in  thesaurio  liberatis. 

Sumna  Recepte  XXXIX  li.  VIII  s.  VIII  d.  In  the- 
saurio XXXV  li.  XVII  s.  II  d.  Et  eisdem  Collector- 
ibus  pro  misis  et  expensis  suis  V  s.  Et  in  thesaurio 
LXVI  s.  VI  d. 

Et  quieti  sunt. 
Appendix  B. 

There  are  numerous  unpublished  records  like  the  fol- 
lowing of  student  troubles  in  the  university  towns : 

Coroners'  Rolls,  No.  128,  dorse: 

Casus  Coronatoris  de  tempore  Ade  de  Spalding  ville 
Oxonie.  De  anno  regni  Regis  Edwardi  XXVto — 

Adhuc  de  anno  XXVI  to.  Villa  Oxonie.  Contigit  die 
veneris  proxima  post  festum  Sancti  Mathie  apostoli  anno 
regni  Regis  Edwardi  XXVIto  (February  28,  1298) 
sero  quod  Fulco  Neyrnuyt  clericus  obiit  in  hospicio 
suo  ubi  manebat  in  parochia  Sancte  Mildride  virginis 
Oxonie.  Et  die  Sabati  proxima  sequente  mane 
visus  fuit  per  Adam  de  Spalding  Coronatorem 
et  habuit  unam  plagam  in  oculo  sinistro  cum 

quadam  minuta dicta  usque  in  cerebrum  et  sic  fere 

per  medium  caput.  Inquisicio  inde  capta  fuit  eodem  die 
coram  Coronatore  predicto  per  quatuor  parochias  pro- 
pinquiores  vidilicet  Sancte  Mildride  Sancti  Petri  Ori- 
entis  beate  Marie  et  Omnium  Sanctorem.  Et  omnes 
Juratores  in  ilia  Inquisicione  dicunt  super  Sacramentum 
suum  quod  die  Lune  in  festo  Sancti  Mathie  apostoli  an- 
no predicto  statim  post  horam  nonam  predictus  Fulco 
et  Willelmus  Neyrnuyt  cum  multis  aliis  clericis  et  eorum 
mancipiis  venerunt  in  alto  vico  inter  ecclesiam  beate  Marie 
et  ecclesiam  Omnium  Sanctorum  cum  arcubus  et  sagittis 
gladiis  et  bocleariis  fundis  et  aspidibus  et  aliis  diversis 
armis  et  insultum  fecerunt  in  omnes  laicos  quos  attingere 
poterunt  et  multos  male  volneraverunt  et  domos  et  schop- 


83 

pas  quorundam  laicorum  fregerunt  et  bona  et  catalla 
in  eisdem  inventa  ceperunt  et  felonice  asportaverunt 
contra  pacem  per  quod  hutesium  magnum  tenatum  fuit 
ita  quod  plures  laici  supervenerunt  ad  perturbandum  mal- 
efactores  predictos.  Et  postquam  predictus  Fulco 
sagittaverat  omnes  sagittas  suas  tune  venit  ad  domum 
Edwardi  de  Hales  et  Basilic  uxoris  sue  juxta  ecclesiam 
beate  Marie  virginis  et  dictam  domum  viriliter  insultavit 
cum  aliis  de  societate  sua  qui  volebant  dictam  domum 
intrasse  et  bona  in  eadem  existencia  depredasse.  Sed 
predictus  Edwardus  stans  in  quodam  solario  defen- 
debat  domum  suam  cum  arcu  suo  et  ut  predictus  Fulco 
respexit  ultra  Targiam  suam  predictus  Edwardus  saggit- 
tavit  eum  in  oculo  sinistro  per  quod  obiit  die  veneris 
supradicto.  Set  habuit  omnia  Jura  ecclesiastica  et 
vixit  per  quatuor  dies. 

Coroner's  Roll  No.  128,  dorse: 

Contigit  die  Jovis  proxima  post  festum  Exaltacionis 
Sancte  Crucis  anno  regni  Regis  Edwardi  XXVIto  (Sep- 
tember 1 8,  1298)  quod  Johannes  Burel  obiit  in  Gaola 
ville  Oxonie  circa  horam  ignitegii.  Et  die  veneres  se- 
quente  mane  visus  fuit  per  Adam  de  Spalding  Corana- 
torem  et  habuit  unam  plagam  in  cervice  capitis  mor- 
talem  continentem  in  longitudine  sex  pollices  et  in  pro- 
funditate  attigit  usque  ad  cerebrum  et  in  frontem  capitis 
habuit  quandam  aliam  plagam  sed  non  mortalem.  In- 
quisco  inde  capta  fuit  eodem  die  coram  Coronatore 
predicto  per  quatuor  parochias  propinquiores  videlicet 
Sancti  Michaelis  Borealis  Sancte  Mildride  Sancte  Mar- 
tini et  Omnium  Sanctorum.  Et  omnes  Juratores  in 
ilia  Inquisicione  dicunt  super  Sacramentum  suum  quod 
predictus  Johannes  Burel  fuit  die  Jovis  supradicto  sero 
ad  tabernam  servisie  ad  domum  Thome  de  Staunton 
cum  aliis  clericis  de  Hibernia.  Et  quidam  Nicholaus  de 
Vilers  de  Hibernia  clericus  et  quidam  Johannes  de 
Suthfolk  cum  quibusdam  aliis  clericis  sedebant  in 
eadem  domo  bibentes  in  quadam  societate  per  se  et  non 
cum  aliis.  Tandem  mota  fuit  contencio  verborum  inter 
partes  predictas  et  sic  omnes  exierunt  a  dicta  domo  con- 


84 

tendentes.  Et  statim  postquam  venerunt  in  vicum  pre- 
dictus  Johannes  Burel  extraxit  gladium  suum  et  instant- 
er  insultabat  predictum  Nicholaum  et  ipse  in  quantum 
potuit  fugit  tenando  hutesium  et  predictus  Johannes  de 
Suthfolk  similiter  fugit  et  dictus  Johannes  Burel  semper 
persequebatur  eos  viriliter  cum  gladio  suo  extracto 
volens  ipsos  occidisse.  Et  dictus  Nicholaus  videns  se  nullo 
modo  posse  evadare  periculum  mortis  extraxit  gladium 
suum  et  vim  vi  repellando  et  se  ipsum  defendendo  ne  occi- 
deretur  percussit  dictum  Johannem  Burel  in  f  ronti  sed  non 
mortaliter  et  idem  Johannes  nichilominus  insulabat  predic- 
tum Nicholaum  cum  gladio  suo  virilius  velocius  et  acer- 
bius  quam  prius  fecerat  et  ut  occidisse  voluit  et  debuit  pre- 
dictum Nicholaum  venit  predictus  Johannes  de  Suthfolk 
et  cum  quadam  hachia  que  vocatur  Sparth  quam  habuit 
in  manu  sua  percussit  dictum  Johannem  Burel  in  cervice 
capitis  ita  quod  de  ilia  plaga  obiit  ut  predictum  est  et 
statim  propter  hutesium  tenatum  prius  per  dictum 
Nicholaum  supervenit  multitude  populi  et  sic  omnes  at- 
tachiati  fuerunt  et  inprisonati  et  ibidem  predictus  Jo- 
hannes Burel  obiit  ut  predictum  est.  Et  postea  pre- 
dictus Nicholaus  coram  H.  de  Branteston  et  T.  Neyrnuyt 
Justiciariis  ad  Gaolam  ville  Oxionie  deliberandam  as- 
signatis  deliberatus  fuit  per  patriam.  Et  predictus  Jo- 
hannes de  Suthfolk  coram  eisdem  Justiciariis  per  patriam 
convictus  fuit  de  morte  illo  et  quia  clericus  fuit  ideo  liber- 
atus  fuit  episcopo  Lincolniensi. 

Coroner's  Roll,  No.  23 — Villa  Cantebrigie,  mem- 
brane 3 : 

Placita  corone  tenta  coram  Stephano  Morys  seniore  et 
Edmundo  Listere  Coronatoribus  libertatis  ville  predicte  a 
die  lune  in  Crastino  Sancte  Marie  Magdalene  anno  reg- 
ni  Regis  Edwardi  tercii  post  conquestum  XLJII  [July 
23>  *369]  usque  festum  Sancte  Luce  Evangeliste  anno 
regni  regis  Ricardi  secundi  post  conquestum  quarto 
[October  18,  1380]. 

Accidit  apud  Cantebrigian  die  Sabati  in  vigilia  Pente- 
costes  anno  regni  regis  Edwardi  tercii  post  conquestum 


85 

XLVIII  [May  20,  1324]  quod  quidam  Rogerus  Keb- 
Tsel  inventus  fuit  mortuus  habens  unam  plagam  in  capite 
ex  parte  dextra  longitudinis  quatuor  pollicium  et  pro- 
funditatis  duorum  pollicium.  Inquisicio  facta  de  morte 
predicti  Rogeri  per  Willelmum  de  Cumbertom  Willelmum 
Hyndercle  Johannem  Colvile  skynnere  Johannem  de 
Northfolk  Johannem  Coupere  Robertum  de  Holm  Ricard- 
um  Bowyere  Andream  Breustere  Ricardum  Ferrour  Jo- 
hannem Albyn  Johannem  Hosyere  et  Thomam  Mayden- 
ston.  Qui  dicunt  super  sacramentum  suum  quod  die 
Martis  in  festo  Sancti  Marci  Evangeliste  anno  supra- 
dicto  [April  25,  1374]  ante  mediam  noctem  in  Cante- 
brigia  apud  cornarium  Sancti  Benedicti  quedam  rixa  orie- 
batur  inter  Magistrum  Robertum  Utesle  et  Johannem  de 
Stowe  Johannem  Saunford  et  alios  clericos  et  ceperunt 
pugnare  inter  se  et  cum  nunciatum  fuit  sociis  dicti  Johan- 
nis  Saunford  de  diversis  hospiciis  et  de  Aula  Regis  vener- 
unt  clerici  ad  dictum  cornarium  ad  dictum  Johannem 
Saunford  succurrendum  cum  quibus  venit  dictus  Rog- 
erus Kebbel.  Et  quidam  Ricardus  Reyner  venit  cum 
uno  pollax  et  dicto  Rogero  dedit  plagam  supradictam 
et  sic  eum  felonice  interfecit  de  qua  plaga  languebat  a 
dicto  feste  Sancti  Marci  usque  in  vigiliam  Pentecostes 
supradictam  quo  die  obiit.  Et  statim  post  feloniam  fac- 
tam  predictus  Ricardus  se  retraxit.  Et  dicunt  quod  pre- 
dictus  Ricardus  non  habuit  aliqua  terras  tenementa 
bona  seu  catalla  que  extendi  seu  appreciari  possunt. 

Rogerus  Reyner  clericus  pri-  j  Henricus  Masoun 
mo   eum    invenit    plegii    sui     I  Johanne(m)  [sic]  Curre 

f  Hugo  Coupere  j  Henricus  Amant 

'5          plegii  sui  (  Thomas  Dount 


•~    j  Galfridus  Soutere        (  Ricardus  Malton 
^          plegii  sui  1  Henricus  Dounyng 


03 

3 

a 


Hugo  Forthe  J  Thomas  Catoun 

plegii  sui  1  Ricardus  Hoog 

Ricardus  Houghton  j  Hugo  Scarre 

plegii  sui  (.  Johanne(m)  [sic]  Lokyere 


BIBLIOGRAPHY.* 


Griffiths,  John:  Enactments  in  parliament  specially 
concerning  the  universities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge. 
Oxford,  1869. 

Huber,  V.  A.:  A  general  history  of  the  universities 
of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  from  the  earliest  period. 
Translation  by  F.  W.  Newman.  London,  1843.  2  vols. 

Rashdall. :  The  universities  of  Europe  during  the 
middle  ages.  Oxford,  1895.  2  vols.  in  3  parts. 

<    I  '     '    :  T 

';  ' 

CAMBRIDGE 

Cooper,  C.  H.:  Annals  of  Cambridge.  Cambridge, 
1842.  4  vols. 

Documents  relating  to  the  university  and  colleges 
of  Cambridge.  Printed  by  the  commissioners  appoint- 
ed by  the  Queen  to  inquire  into  the  state  *  *  *  of  the 
said  university.  London,  1852.  3  vols. 

Dyer,  George:  History  of  the  university  of  Cam- 
bridge. London,  1814.  2  vols. 

,  :  The  privileges  of  the  university  of 

Cambridge.  London,  1824.  2  vols. 

Fuller,  Thomas:  The  history  of  the  university  of 
Cambridge.  Edition,  Prickett  &  Wright.  Cambridge, 
1840. 

Maitland,  F.  W.  and  M.  Bateson :  The  charters  of  the 
borough  of  Cambridge.  Cambridge,  1901. 

Mullinger,  J.  B. :  The  university  of  Cambridge  from 
the  earliest  times  to  the  accession  of  Charles  the  First. 
Cambrige,  1873-83^  2  vols. 

*This  bibliography  is  not  intended  to  be  complete.  I  have  only 
noted  those  books  either  directly  quoted  in  my  foot  notes  or 
which  stand  as  a  basis  for  some  of  the  ideas  expressed  in  the  text. 
This  will  account  for  the  omission  of  chronicles  and  of  various 
histories  of  the  colleges  which  yielded  nothing  to  the  general 
subject  in  hand. 


87 

OXFORD. 

Anstey,  H. :  Munimenta  academica.  Rolls  Series 
London,  1868.  2  vols. 

Boase,  C.  W. :  Oxford.     London,  1887. 

Broderick,  G.  C. :  A  history  of  the  university  of  Ox- 
ford. 3rd  ed.,  London,  1894. 

Henson,  H.  H. :  Letters  relating  to  Oxford  in  the 
fourteenth  century.  Oxford  Hist.  Soc.  Collectanea  II. 
Oxford,  1890. 

Holland,  T.  E. :  The  university  of  Oxford  in  the 
twelfth  century.  Ox.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  I.  Oxford,  1885. 

Little,  A.  G.:  The  grey  friars  in  Oxford.  O.  H.  S. 
Oxford,  1892. 

Lyte,  H.  C.  Maxwell:  A  history  of  the  university  of 
Oxford.  London,  1886. 

Neubauer,  A. :  Notes  on  the  Jews  in  Oxford.  O.  H. 
S.  Coll.  II.  Oxford,  1890. 

Ogle,  Octavius:  Royal  letters  addressed  to  Oxford. 
Oxford,  1892. 

— ,  -       -:  The  Oxford  market.     O.  H.  S.  Coll. 
II.     Oxford,  1890. 

Peshall,  J. :  The  history  of  the  university  of  Oxford. 
Oxford,  1773. 

Rashdall,  H. :  The  friars  preachers  and  the  uni- 
versity. O.  H.  S.  Coll.  II.  Oxford,  1890. 

Rogers,  J.  E.  Thorold:  Oxford  city  documents.  O. 
H.  S.  Oxford,  1891. 

Smith,  L.  T. :  Parliamentary  petitions  relating  to 
Oxford  [1279-1496].  O.  H.  S.  Coll.  III.  Oxford, 
1896. 

Statutes  of  the  colleges  of  Oxford.  Printed  by  the 
desire  of  her  Majesty's  commissioners  for  inquiring  into 
the  state  of  the  university  of  Oxford.  London,  1853. 
3  vols. 

Turner,  W.  H.  and  Coxe:  Calendar  of  charters  and 
rolls  preserved  in  the  Bodleian  library.  Oxford,  1878. 

Wood,  Anthony  a. :    The  history  and  antiquities  of 


88 

the    university    of    Oxford.     Ed.    J.    Gutch.     Oxford, 
1792-96.     3  vols. 

GENERAL. 

Manuscripts. 

British  Museum: 

5808,  5813,  5820,  5821,  5822,  5837,  5838,  5842,  5843, 

5845,  5859,  5865,  5884. 

Add.,  4507,45690 ;  Faust.,  C.  Ill,  C.  VII ;  Harl.,  1909, 
2058,  4115,  4116,  7028,  7030,  7031,  7037,  7040,  7043, 
7048 ;  Lansd.,  325  ;  Stowe,  799. 
Public  Record  Office : 

Coroners'  rolls,  Nos.   15,   16,  17,  18,  19,  20,  22,  23, 
24,  128,  129,  130,  131,  132,  133,  134,  135. 

L.  T.  R.  Subsidy  enrolled  accounts,  Nos.  i,  3,  6,  8, 

ii,  13- 

Fine  rolls,  Nos.  144,  152,  157,  158,  172,  173,  179,  180. 
Gaol  delivery  rolls,  79,  86,  87,  113,  125,  161,  180,  181. 
Assize  rolls,  95,  98,  103,  717. 
County  placita  (Chancery),  Nos.  13,  26,  29. 

81    81    81    81   81    81    81 

Exchequer,    lay    subsidies  :  — ,  — ,  — ,  — ,  — ,  — ,  — t. 

5     6     8   42  45   55   62 

81  81  81  81   81   81   81  161  161  161  161  161 

«   »   >   >    »  ~  ~~">    >    ,    >    >    j    »• 
63  64  85  92  103  112  113   4    6   8   9    18 

161  161  161  161  161  161  161  161  161 
30   31   32   36  45  47  49  56  57 
Printed. 

Calendar  close  rolls : 

Edward  II.,  1307-27.  4  vols. 

Edward  III.,  1327-1339.    4  vols. 
Calendar  patent  rolls : 


89 

Edward  I.,  1281-1307.     3  vols. 

Edward  II.,  1307-1317.     2  vols. 

Edward  III.,  1327-1343.     5  vols. 

Richard  II.,  1377-85.     2  vols. 

Calendar  papal  registers.  Papal  letters,  1198-1362 
3  vols. 

Calendar  feudal  aids,  1284-1431.     Vol.  I. 

Hardy,  T.  D.  :Syllabus  of  documents  in  Rymer's 
Foedera.  Rolls  Series.  London,  1869-85.  3  vols. 

Maitland,  F.  W. :  Records  of  the  parliament  held  at 
Westminster  in  1305.  R.  S.  London,  1893. 

Merewether,  H.  A.  and  A.  J.  Stephens:  The  history 
of  the  boroughs  and  municipal  corporations  of  the 
United  Kingdom.  London,  1835.  3  vols. 

Palgrave,  F. :  Parliamentary  writs  and  writs  of  mili- 
tary summons  [Edward  I — Edward  III].  Record  Com- 
mission. London,  1827-34.  2  vols. 

Rotuli  parliamentorum  ut  et  petitiones  et  placita  in 
parliamento  [1278-1503].  n.  p.,  n.  d.  6  vols. 

Rymer,  T. :  Foedera,  conventiones,  litterae,  etc. 
[1101-1654].  Edition  of  A.  Clark.  Rec.  Com.  Lon- 
don, 1816-69.  4  vols. 

Shirley,  W.  W. :  Royal  and  other  historical  letters 
illustrative  of  the  reign  of  Henry  III.  Roll  Series. 
London,  1862-66.  2  vols. 

Wilkins,  David:  Concilia  Magnae  Britanniae  et  Hi- 
berniae  A.  D.  446-1718.  London,  1737.  4  vols. 


JLA 


THE  LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
Santa  Barbara 


STACK  COLLECTION 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


10m-6,'62(C9724s4)476D 


3  1205  00231  2526 
l-L. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A    001376965    8 


